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. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant’s name account.

B. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff issued two copies of cashier’s checks (hereinafter “each of the instant checks”) at one bank (hereinafter “each of the instant checks”) at the face value of 100,000,000, and the Defendant endorsed on the back of each of the instant checks.

On September 30, 2014, and January 12, 2015, total of KRW 200 million deposited into the Defendant’s name account.

C. From the Defendant’s account, the sum of KRW 4 million on December 17, 2014, KRW 10 million on January 9, 2015, and KRW 54 million on January 13, 2015 was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that "the defendant lent a total of KRW 250 million to the defendant (the loan of this case hereinafter referred to as "the above KRW 250 million"), and only he received KRW 54 million from the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid payment amount of KRW 196 million and the delay damages for the above amount." 2) The defendant asserts that "Aber land borrowed money from the plaintiff using the passbook in the name of the defendant, which is his father, using the passbook, and is not the defendant, and therefore the defendant does not bear the obligation to repay the loan to the plaintiff."

B. 1) Generally, who is a party to a monetary loan contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. In the event of a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties, the parties’ interpretation should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238212, Jan. 25, 2018).