1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination as to loan claims

A. The plaintiff 1) The plaintiff 30 million won (hereinafter referred to as "the money of this case") to the defendant.

(2) At the time of the Plaintiff’s request for purchase in the name of the Defendant, one of the vinyls that the Plaintiff would have been able to receive the Plaintiff’s compensation under the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant purchased one of the vinyls in the instant case from the owner of the vinyls C, etc. with the instant money (i.e., the amount of KRW 15 million in the vinyls Co., Ltd.) (i., the amount (i.e., the amount of KRW 15 million in the vinyls Co., Ltd.). The Defendant purchased the vinyls Co., Ltd. as the instant money (i., the amount of KRW 15 million in the vinyls Co., Ltd.).

B. First, we examine whether the instant money is a loan or loan.

The following circumstances, i.e., Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 1-2 and the whole purport of the pleadings, i.e., the plaintiff remitted the money of this case to the defendant at KRW 25 million on June 15, 2007, around July 18, 2007, and KRW 5 million on July 17, 2007, ② the defendant purchased a plastic house of KRW 15 million in Busan Gangseo-gu D 56 square meters on June 17, 2007, and transferred KRW 15 million to C while purchasing KRW 15 million on June 17, 207, but there was no entry related to the special agreement between the defendant and C on the terms of a sales contract concluded between the defendant and C, and the compensation for the plaintiff at the time of the occurrence of the compensation in the name of "E" shall be the defendant himself.

(3) There is a substantial difference between the Plaintiff’s payment of the instant money to the Defendant and KRW 15 million. However, if the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to purchase the vinyl under the name of the Defendant, it would have not paid the amount equivalent to KRW 15 million of the purchase price, and ④ the Defendant would have not paid the amount equivalent to KRW 15 million of the purchase price.