1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff, upon introduction by the Defendant and C, agreed to lend KRW 200 million to 2.5% per interest month, to the 000 million construction company (hereinafter “0 million construction”). On May 28, 2013, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 170 million in the name of the Plaintiff (which means the above loan) in the name of the Defendant’s account (which means KRW 160 million) and KRW 100 million in D’s name (which means the above loan).

B. On May 28, 2013, from the Defendant’s account, KRW 180 million was deposited from the account under the name of White Construction to the account under the name of White Construction, and KRW 20 million was not deposited.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, at the request of the Defendant, deposited KRW 200 million in the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant. However, the Defendant paid only KRW 180 million among them to the white construction and embezzled the remainder of KRW 20 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of KRW 20 million with unjust enrichment and the amount of KRW 20 million with interest rate of KRW 30% per annum that could have been received if the Defendant lent the amount of KRW 20 million to the construction of the normal margin from May 28, 2013 to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff merely lent money to the Defendant through the Defendant C, and the Defendant merely lent the name of the account to C, and there is no means to participate in the Plaintiff’s lending process. Therefore, there was no fact that the Defendant embezzled KRW 20 million.

The defendant only received KRW 10 million out of the above KRW 20 million from C as office operating expenses.

3. Determination

A. around May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 200 million to 2.5% per month in the white construction upon introduction by Defendant and C; the Plaintiff deposited KRW 200 million in the name of the said loan in the Defendant’s account; and the fact that only KRW 180 million among them was deposited in the white construction is recognized as above.

(b)in this case;