1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 190,000,000 on September 17, 2007, KRW 900,000 on April 30, 2008, KRW 190,000 on May 16, 2008, and KRW 500,000 on July 1, 2009 to the Defendant’s name account.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant traded money several times from 2007 to 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Since the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 5.2 million from the Plaintiff, it is obligated to pay the above borrowed money and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. On May 16, 2008, the above KRW 1.9 million out of the defendant 5.2 million was borrowed by D, not the defendant, and the defendant lent only the passbook to the defendant, and the remaining KRW 3.3 million was paid with the money that the defendant lent to the plaintiff, not the money that the plaintiff lent to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. The loan amounting to KRW 1.9 million on May 16, 2008 is the loan amounting to KRW 1.9 million between the parties, and there is no dispute between the parties, and as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the borrower of the loan is the defendant unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the statement in subparagraph 3 (D confirmed that the loan amounting to KRW 1.9 million was borrowed from the plaintiff around April 2008, the above remittance date) alone is insufficient to recognize that the loan amounting to KRW 1.9 million is D, and there is no other evidence to support this.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.

B. In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account of the remaining 3.3 million won, such transfer may be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, simple delivery, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an intention of a party to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such transfer was made, and there is no dispute as to the fact that there was an acceptance of money between the parties.