1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. On March 6, 2018, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred 4 million won from the Plaintiff’s deposit account to the Defendant’s deposit account (hereinafter “instant transfer money”) is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the transfer of this case is a loan to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to repay it to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Defendant received the refund of part of the instant transfer money, not the loan, and even if the loan is a loan, the Defendant did not have any obligation to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim as it lent and invested KRW 20 million on August 21, 2015, and KRW 10 million on May 27, 2017, and held the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of investment amount of KRW 1.7 billion against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the instant claim and the said claim are set-off within the equal amount.

3. We examine the plaintiff's argument that the transfer amount in this case is a loan, and although the defendant led to the plaintiff's argument at the second date of the trial of the first instance, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement in the evidence No. 3 through No. 16 (including each number), and there is no counter-proof evidence. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the transfer amount in this case was a refund of part of the investment amount to the defendant. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the above confession is contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and it was lawfully revoked in accordance with the defendant's declaration of revocation at the third date of pleading of the court of first instance, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's argument, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

On September 2017, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C (hereinafter “D”) together with the money borrowed by the Defendant and C from D Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “D”) that the Plaintiff had been employed as a director, and the Plaintiff’s money, E (hereinafter “E”).