The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that on June 21, 2017, the defendant secured the defendant's right to deposit and operate a singinging lease deposit and the right to operate the singing lease, and the plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 40 million to the defendant as of August 22, 2018.

A 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 ownership in kind, quality and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As such, there must be an agreement between the parties as to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the said remittance may result in various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, custody, or entrustment of delivery, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a mutual consent of the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made. The Plaintiff asserts that the said remittance was made due to a loan for consumption. The burden of proving that there was such mutual consent is the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said remittance was made due to a loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). According to the lack of dispute between the parties or evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff’s wife may be recognized as having remitted KRW 40 million to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant around June 26, 2017.

However, the power of attorney (No. 1) presented as evidence by the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was offered as security for the obligation from the Defendant and submitted as evidence is difficult to view that the mandator is the Defendant’s name as the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the mandator is the Defendant. It is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff did not prepare a letter of delegation despite the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff received the power of attorney for the guarantee of the obligation from the Defendant. It is difficult to understand that the Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff, “The Defendant has a different 4,000-grick and greed to the developing country.”