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. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 15 million and delay damages to the plaintiff, since he lent to the defendant a loan of KRW 15 million on November 26, 2009.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 15 million was not borrowed from the plaintiff with the right to operate the defendant's vehicle and the return received in return.

2. Determination

A. In case of remitting money to another person's deposit account, etc., the remittance can be made based on a variety of legal causes. As such, the claimant has the burden of proving that the remittance is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person who has received the money.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). B.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1-2, the plaintiff could recognize the fact that the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 15 million on November 26, 2009 to the defendant's account. However, the above fact alone is insufficient to recognize that the amount transferred by the plaintiff is a loan under a monetary loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.