1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Appeal costs and ancillary costs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 140 million to the account of the bank account (Account Number E) established in the name of the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 60 million in total from F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), KRW 15 million on March 26, 2012, KRW 5 million on April 3, 2012, KRW 20 million on November 7, 2012 from C, and KRW 20 million on March 19, 2013.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was determined and lent to the Defendant, which was known by the introduction of C on January 13, 2012, KRW 140 million as the agreed interest rate of KRW 20 million and KRW 20 million after the due date of payment.

Afterwards, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff the agreed interest of KRW 20 million and the leased principal amount of KRW 40 million over four times.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining 100 million won of the loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that the Plaintiff received money between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was a monetary loan for consumption, and the Defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to a loan for consumption if it is disputed about the cause of receipt of money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In addition, where it is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s transfer of money was made due to a loan for consumption because documents, such as contract or loan certificate, are not prepared between the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, by taking into account all the circumstances such as the relationship between the parties, the details and motive of the receipt of money by means of account transfer, the purpose and true intention of the parties, transaction practices, etc., and the above recognition and the statement in Gap’s subparagraphs 2 through 5, and Eul’s evidence 1 through 3, respectively.