1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, from May 7, 2014, was in office as a director of the agricultural partnership C (hereinafter “C”) from around May 7, 2014, and actually has been operating C.

B. On January 7, 2016, C paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant money”) by account transfer.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant, even if so, borrowed the instant money from the Defendant.

Even if the other party is not the plaintiff, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is not a party.

In a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff's standing to be a party is nominal as the plaintiff's claim itself, and the judgment is absorptiond into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, so the claimant is a legitimate plaintiff and the person asserted as the obligor is a legitimate defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26499 delivered on July 25, 1989). In light of the following, the instant lawsuit is a performance suit, and thus, the Plaintiff, claiming the performance claim, has the standing to be a party.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff asserts that the money in this case was leased at the defendant's request for a monetary loan, and the plaintiff claimed the remainder of KRW 12 million except for the remainder of KRW 3 million received from the defendant. The defendant asserts that the money in this case was only the money received as a referral fee for arranging the lending of money from D, and it is not a loan.

B. 1) Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the said money was given and received between the parties, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the said money was given and lent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018).