1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The gist of the parties' assertion argues that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 15 million and damages for delay because the plaintiff received a monthly request from the defendant to lend KRW 15 million to the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that although the defendant received money from the plaintiff who was living together with the plaintiff as a joint living allowance, he did not borrow money.

2. According to the statement (including paper numbers) Nos. 3 through 5 submitted for the first time in the trial of fact-finding, it is recognized that the Plaintiff delivered KRW 15 million to the Defendant around July 15, 2013, a total of KRW 15 million cashier’s checks (hereinafter “the instant money”), and that the Defendant deposited the entire amount of the instant money into the SCB bank account in the name of the Defendant on July 16, 2013.

3. Determination

A. Although there is no dispute over the fact that an exchange of money between the parties, such as related legal principles, the plaintiff claims the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is another purpose, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it is a loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). On the other hand, the reason for the receipt of money should not be determined as a donation immediately on the grounds that two persons exchange and receive money are both men and women having a relationship with one another. Whether the cause is a loan for consumption or a donation should be determined by taking into account the developments leading up to the exchange of money, the economic situation and specific living relationship between the parties, amount, and intent of return, etc.

B. In light of the above legal principles, although the records of this case were not prepared with respect to the money of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap 6 through 7, and the purport of the entire argument.