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. Basic facts

A. A. Around May 2016, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s store operated by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant had the equitable ties with respect to each other, and began the teaching system.

B. After that, the Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 21,00,000 to the Defendant from August 201, 2016 to September 2016, when the Plaintiff was in school with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant payment”).

C. On October 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant resided together in the Plaintiff’s residential area prepared in the Kimpo-si area and came into consideration around 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion was requested to lend money from the defendant at the time and lent the money to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the money of this case to the plaintiff.

3. The fact that the Plaintiff paid the instant payment to the Defendant from August 2016 to September 2016 is as seen earlier, but further, whether the instant payment constitutes a loan (i.e., the fact of lending) is the burden of proving that the Plaintiff asserts this.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the instant payment as a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Not only did the Plaintiff and the Defendant not prepare a disposal document, such as a loan certificate, with respect to the instant payment, but also did not have any objective evidence to verify the relationship of lending, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion.

With respect to the payment process of this case, the payment of this case was paid to the defendant immediately before the plaintiff commenced a teaching system with the defendant, and the payment of this case was made to the defendant, as alleged by the defendant.