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. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 1% per month and on December 2, 2016. Since the Defendant paid only KRW 6,00,000 out of the above loan, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 24,00,000 and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30,000,00 to the Korean Cit Bank account under the name of the Defendant on July 12, 2016, and thereafter, transferred KRW 300,000 each month to the Plaintiff’s account from August 27, 2016 to June 27, 2017 under the name of the Defendant, and transferred KRW 6,000,000 each total of KRW 3,000,000 on December 19, 2016 and December 23, 2016. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant solely on the above facts, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise.

Rather, the above Korea C&C account under the name of the defendant was the account actually used by C, the actual defendant, and the fact that the plaintiff transferred the above money to the above Korea C&C account under the defendant's name at C's request is either disputed between the parties, or can be recognized by the purport of all entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2. Accordingly, the person who borrowed the above money from the plaintiff appears not to be the defendant, but to be C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is the borrower is without merit.

B. As to this, even if the Plaintiff lent the above money to C, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant had the obligation to repay the above loan to the Plaintiff, even if the account holder, who was the account holder, was also obligated to pay the above loan, because the Plaintiff allowed C to use the account under the name of the Defendant, even if the Plaintiff lent the above money to C. However, the Defendant transferred the above loan to the account under the name of the Defendant solely on the ground that the Defendant allowed C to use the