1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts from the Plaintiff’s bank account to the Defendant’s corporate bank account on June 5, 2018, and the same month;

9. The fact that KRW 10,000 has been transferred from the Defendant’s corporate bank account to the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account, the fact that KRW 30,000,000 has been transferred from the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account to the Defendant’s corporate bank account on the same day is recognized by the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account, or that the fact that KRW 30,000,000 has been transferred from the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account to the Defendant’s corporate bank account on the same day is nonexistent between the parties, or that it is recognized by the evidence No.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant requested for the loan to the effect that "I will return the principal along with the interest of 5% if he/she lends the principal to the defendant," and that he/she lent KRW 40,000,000 to the defendant, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant invested in C's land distribution business through the introduction of the defendant.

B. Determination 1) Even though there is no dispute as to the fact of receiving money between the parties, if the Plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving money was a loan for consumption and the Defendant asserts that it was received due to the loan for consumption. In addition, in the event of remitting money to another person’s deposit account like this case, such transfer may be based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc., and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to the loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such transfer was made due to the loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014).