1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On August 2017, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for a loan of KRW 3 million on or around the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s loan. The Plaintiff’s claim for a loan of KRW 30 million on or around September 2017 was dismissed by accepting the Defendant’s defense of repayment.

In this regard, the plaintiff appealed only against the loan claim of KRW 30 million around August 2017, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the above loan claim of the plaintiff.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 12 million in cash to the Plaintiff’s account, KRW 7.9 million in total, KRW 1 million in total, and KRW 20 million in total, KRW 1 million in the Plaintiff’s possession. On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to receive additional KRW 5 million in cash from the Defendant’s second-class parking lot of Seoul D DD hotel, and that the Defendant would receive KRW 5 million in interest. Accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for payment of KRW 30 million in cash and delay damages therefrom.

B. First, we examine whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on August 16, 2017.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, E transferred 8 million won from his Nonghyup Bank account on August 16, 2017 to the plaintiff's Korean City Bank account on 18:19, and withdrawn 600,000 won in cash over six times each, each of which was 18:26 times, and transferred 6,00,000 won to his own Dong Agricultural Bank account on 18:30,000,000 won, and then withdrawn 5,90,000 won in cash from his Dong Agricultural Bank account on 19:54, and the plaintiff withdrawn 8,000 won from his own Korean City Bank account on 18:27, 2017 to 7.9 million won in cash.

However, the above facts and the purport of the whole pleadings are known.