1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an internal director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) who is engaged in the business of installing and dismantling non- verification structures, and Defendant B is an internal director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) who produces and installs hot materials in the power plant, etc., and Defendant C is a person who was working as a management director of E.

B. On January 15, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to an account in the name of F designated by the Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff D had been awarded a subcontract for the installation and dismantling of the non-limited structure related to the power plant repair work from E and had it performed. In the process of receiving the subcontract price, the Defendants demanded to lend money after three months if the Defendants were to lend KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to do so and it is necessary for Defendant B to do so.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendants by means of remitting the money to the F’s name account.

B. The Defendants did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, but only received a refund of KRW 30 million, which is the difference between KRW 115 million and the actual construction cost, which is the difference between KRW 15 million and KRW 85 million, issued by E with the construction-related tax invoice of KRW 15 million.

3. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendants solely on the basis of each of the records of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the above basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, part of Gap evidence No. 6, and fact-finding with respect to the Yong-dong Development Headquarters Co., Ltd. in the court of the first instance, and the result of fact-finding with respect to the defendant C of the court of the first instance.