The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

1. The fact that C, the Plaintiff’s mother of the basic fact, remitted 4.5 million won (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Defendant on February 1, 2011 does not conflict between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant, and as the Plaintiff acquired the loan claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the instant money and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the monetary amount of this case was transferred to the Defendant, the obligee of Nonparty D, while lending the monetary amount to Nonparty D, is not a loan to the Defendant.

3. Where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment. Therefore, the mere fact that such transfer was made cannot be readily concluded that there was the intent of the parties to the loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such transfer was in accord is the cause of the loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.). The following circumstances revealed in the witness C and D testimony of each party, namely, C, while engaging in credit business, did not obtain a loan certificate from the Defendant, and did not know the Defendant’s contact address, C was a person who introduced and accompanied the Defendant, and obtained a loan certificate of KRW 30 million and obtained a mortgage on real estate owned by D; C, while lending KRW 30 million to D, remitted KRW 2,50,000 among them to the account of KRW 2,50,000,000,000,000 to KRW 7,550,000,000,000,000 were paid in cash.