1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and the pleading materials submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows, except for further determination on the matters alleged by the Plaintiff as the reasons for appeal, and therefore, the reasoning of the first instance judgment is as stated in the part of the reasons for appeal. As such, this Court cited this case as it is included in summary under the main sentence of

2. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is merely lent KRW 57,500,00 to the defendant, and there is no error in investment.

The defendant bears the burden of proving that the above 57,50,000 Won invested and that the defendant agreed that the principal is not obliged to return if there is no profit.

B. In full view of the following legal principles, various circumstances, and grounds, there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lent KRW 57,500,000 to the Defendant.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which determined that there is insufficient proof of the requirements for lending the provisions of the Civil Act, is justifiable, and there is insufficient evidence, circumstances, materials, and evidence to change the judgment of the court of first instance in

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

1) Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the lending was made, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the lending was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014; 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). 2) In order to recognize the “loan” constituted by the Plaintiff, the requirements for “lease” under the Civil Act and the precedents should be proven, and the fact that the “lease” is the Plaintiff.