Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. From December 2013, the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant from around December 2013 as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “the table” when referring to individual monetary transactions. The amount of money temporarily set by the sequence 1,00,000 on December 29, 2013, 2013, 200,000 on February 16, 2014, 30,000 on July 14, 2014, 300,000 April 3, 2014, 4,50,005 5, on May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the money to the Defendant’s account, but the remittance name was written as H, although the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant’s account.

6. Total sum of 9 million 7 December 30, 2015, 57,300,000 on June 18, 2015

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 2 million to F on July 15, 2014, and the Defendant has transferred KRW 2 million to F each month from March 2014 to June 2014.

C. On November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 3 million to I Co., Ltd., which was deposited as the rent for the vehicle sold by the Defendant as a business employee.

On December 30, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 19.9 million in total to the Plaintiff for the repayment of money transaction Nos. 1 and 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1-3-2, evidence 11-14, Eul evidence 1 and 4-2, IBK Bank, IBK Company, IBK Company and J respectively's financial transaction information reply results, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the money written in the Plaintiff’s basic facts was transferred to another person directly or upon the Defendant’s request, the Defendant must pay the total of KRW 42,400,000 and damages for delay remaining, excluding the loans 1 and 2 in the table of repayment 1 and 2.

B. Defendant 1’s table Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 are not the amount that the Defendant borrowed from the Plaintiff, but rather the amount that the Plaintiff ought to pay to the Defendant. ② The amount Nos. 5 is the Plaintiff’s remittance to the Defendant upon the Plaintiff’s request, ③ there was no demand for remittance to the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014, and ④ the Plaintiff’s remittance to the I Co., Ltd. on November 28, 2014 is the vehicle lease amount that the Plaintiff agreed to succeed.