1. The counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the principal lawsuit.

The plaintiff asserts that on March 17, 2006, 400 million won was deposited to the defendant's bank account and lent the above money to the defendant.

The defendant, not borrowed the above money from the plaintiff but already returned to the plaintiff as invested. Even if the loan was a loan, the commercial statute of limitations has expired more than five years, and the defendant's damage claim against the plaintiff is not set off against the plaintiff.

Judgment

On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 400 million to the Defendant on March 17, 2016, although there is no dispute between the parties, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the amount of money is received between the parties, the cause that the Plaintiff received it is the loan for consumption, and the Defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to the loan for consumption if it

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Although the Plaintiff asserted that he lent a large amount of money worth KRW 400 million to the Defendant, he did not prepare a disposition document to support it, such as a monetary loan contract, loan certificate, receipt, etc., and the fact that he did not receive any security from the Defendant is inconsistent with the empirical rule.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that it is a loan, there is no specific assertion of the terms of the loan agreement, such as interest, maturity, and delay interest rate.

Even if it is based on the statement No. 3-1 and No. 2 (e.g., 2) submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant, the repayment is only sought.