The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant on December 17, 2012, the Plaintiff had the obligation to repay the said loan to the Plaintiff.

The argument is asserted.

According to the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-1 evidence, the fact that the plaintiff remitted 40 million won to the defendant's name account on December 17, 2012 is recognized.

However, the remittance of money to another person’s deposit account may be made based on various legal causes, such as consumption lending, donation, implementation of an investment agreement, and repayment of goods. Thus, the remittance alone cannot be readily concluded that the remitted money is a loan. There is a burden of proof on the party asserting that the remitted money is a loan under a monetary consumption lending contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In the case of this case where there is no evidence by which the parties’ intent exchange is known at the time of the remittance, even based on each of the above evidence or all other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the money remitted by the Plaintiff as a loan under a consumption lending contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.