1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the head of G oriental medical hospital located in Gwangju Dong-gu (hereinafter “instant hospital”), and the Defendant is the person who operates the said hospital together with Dong-gu, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,00,000 to the Defendant with the operating fund of the said hospital on November 5, 2015, and the Defendant is liable to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not directly lend to the Defendant a domestic affairs.

Even if the above loan was used as the operating fund of the above hospital and the defendant jointly operated the above hospital with the network C, the defendant is responsible for paying the above loan and delay damages.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant did not borrow the operating funds of the instant hospital from the Plaintiff, and was merely paid the operating funds to the account in the name of the Defendant at the request of the network C. The Defendant is the intention to pay monthly salary received from the network C, and the investment and profits and losses in the operation of the instant hospital are attributed to the network C, and the Plaintiff is well aware of these circumstances.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of a loan is acknowledged in full view of the purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money was available between the parties, when the defendant contests against the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to such lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). The fact that the plaintiff deposited KRW 40,000,000 in the account of the hospital operated in the name of the defendant around November 4, 2015 is recognized.

However, in light of the above legal principles, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,00,000 to the Defendant solely based on the above facts of recognition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and instead, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 7.