1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) on January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 50 million to the Defendant; and (b) on the same year.

4. 25. 9,506,00 won in total were loaned to KRW 59,506,00.

As above, the defendant used the money borrowed from the plaintiff to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation as the lease deposit with respect to the Suwon-si C Apartment D.

The plaintiff demanded the return of the above loan to the defendant, but the defendant did not comply with it, so the defendant is obligated to pay the loan 59,506,000 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such kind, quality and quantity as such (Article 598 of the Civil Act). Thus, it is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the party’s intent as to loan for consumption has been jointly determined solely on the fact that such transfer was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). The burden of proving the existence of the parties’ intent lies in the assertion that the remittance was caused by a loan for consumption.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 50 million from his account on January 18, 2016 by cashier’s check, and the same year.

4. The fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 9,506,00 to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation is recognized, but there is no objective evidence such as a loan certificate stating the due date and interest rate, etc., the plaintiff alone is found to be the defendant 59,506.