1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant without setting the deadline; and (b) lent the same year.

7. Since the defendant demanded repayment on or around 24.2, the defendant is obligated to pay the money of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s claim is that the Defendant received the instant development project of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Land and Building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant development project”), which is executed by E Company with the representative director, as the investment proceeds of the said development project, and as such, the said development project was nonexistent, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

C. Determination 1) A: (a) a person who claims reimbursement of a specific amount remitted to the other party by alleging that it was a loan; (b) not only the fact that the amount was remitted, but also the person is responsible to assert and prove that it was a loan under a monetary loan contract; and (c) such principle of burden of proof does not vary even if the other party to whom the money was received was not clearly asserted or did not prove that he/she was not able to use the given amount; (b) the Plaintiff wired the money to the Defendant’s Han Bank Account on February 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant amount”); (c) there was no dispute between the parties; (d) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the instant amount to the Defendant solely on the basis of the statement in subparagraphs 2 and 4 (including the serial number); and (e) there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the nature of the instant money is not a loan, but an investment in the instant development project, in view of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 as well as the overall purport of the testimony and arguments of K, L, and M as witnesses at the trial.

Therefore, the money of this case is interest.