1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The following facts may be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole as to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3.

On May 3, 2006, the network C transferred KRW 17 million to the account in the name of the Plaintiff (name before the name of the Plaintiff: D).

B. The Plaintiff, on February 23, 2009, remitted the net C’s account, KRW 10 million, and KRW 10 million on May 8, 2009, respectively.

C. On November 6, 2016, the deceased C died, and the heir was the Defendant, the spouse, E, and F, who were his/her spouse. However, E and F filed a declaration of renunciation of inheritance with the Changwon District Court 2017Ra128 on February 6, 2017, and the said declaration of renunciation of inheritance was accepted around that time.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion of the parties is set at 2% per month for interest upon the request of the deceased C, and 1-B for one month for the due date.

As stated in paragraph (1), the Defendant, who is the heir of the network C, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 20 million and delay damages.

On the other hand, the Defendant appears to have had a usual monetary transaction relationship with the Plaintiff, such as upon finding out the details of remitting KRW 17 million to the Plaintiff around May 3, 2006 by the network C. However, the Plaintiff’s remittance of KRW 20 million to the account in the name of the network C cannot be recognized by the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the above money.

B. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the judgment delivered money, the Plaintiff asserts the cause of the receipt of money as a loan for consumption, while the Defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the Plaintiff is liable to prove that it is a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014); and there is no document on disposition, such as a certificate of borrowing, in the instant case, and financial transactions are conducted.