1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same.

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) that the Plaintiff gave to the Defendant a total of KRW 23.9 million from October 20, 2012 to November 27, 2012, the Defendant is obligated to pay that amount to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff (hereinafter the instant payment) was a donation to the Defendant with the Plaintiff’s teaching expenses, etc., and the Defendant is not obligated to return that amount to the Plaintiff.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant payment appears to have been donated to the Defendant in a relationship with the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the said money to the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a relationship with the Defendant, there seems to be sufficient motive for the Plaintiff to donate the instant payment to the Defendant. 2) There was no disposition document between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to know of the lending, such as a loan certificate, and it seems that there was no due date or interest agreement.

3) The Plaintiff did not provide any explanation to the Defendant regarding the circumstances leading up to the lending of the instant payment, etc., and there is no circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the said payment after paying the said money. 4) There is no evidence to acknowledge the circumstance that the instant payment is excessively high in terms of the Plaintiff’s economic situation, and there is no evidence to prove that the said payment is excessively high in terms of the Plaintiff’s donation.

5. In light of the fact that the Defendant appears to have paid the school expenses with the Plaintiff, such as the golf course expenses, before receiving the instant payment from the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s assertion that the school expenses were donated as compensation for the school expenses is persuasive.

3. Conclusion