1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance “A. Determination on the Plaintiff’s loan claim” is used as follows, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on loan claims as to the fact that money was received, the plaintiff's assertion that the loan was lent shall bear the burden of proof against the plaintiff who asserts that the loan was lent.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). The fact that the Plaintiff remitted money, such as the money listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the account in the name of the Defendant B or the Deceased does not conflict between the parties.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments presented earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff and the Defendant B or the Deceased had the intent to engage in a loan for consumption solely based on the fact that the aforementioned remittance was made.

① Although the Plaintiff transferred the money to Defendant B or the Deceased on a total of 28 occasions over a total of 10 years, there is no circumstance in which the Deceased demanded the payment of the said money to the Defendant B or the Deceased until he/she died on November 16, 2013.

② There was no specific assertion as to the circumstances of lending each of the aforementioned remitted money, or no evidence, such as a loan certificate, verifying such assertion.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not prepare a separate loan certificate because he borrowed money to the family members, such as the defendant B or the deceased, who is a fraud. Considering the special personal relationship of the family, such explanation can be acceptable, but on the other hand, there are many cases where he donates money to the family members in a close relationship such as family relationship.