1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion C made a corrected statement that the sum totaling all the loans from the preparatory document dated October 11, 2019 to the Defendant from February 4, 2013 to February 8, 2013 is not more than KRW 48 million, but not more than KRW 39 million. However, the Plaintiff did not change the purport of the claim, so the Plaintiff was arranged according to the Plaintiff’s initial argument.

As shown above, a total of 79 million won was lent to the defendant by account transfer in the name of D, etc., and 1.2 million won was repaid among them.

On the other hand, C transferred to the Plaintiff the right to return the unpaid loan amount of KRW 77.8 million (=79 million - 1.2 million).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 77.8 million and damages for delay.

On February 4, 2013, the actual amount of loan claimed under the name of remittance date: D 10 million won; 20 million won; 30 million won; 4.5 million won; 1.6 million won; 4 million won; 1.6 million won; 1.6 million won; 3 million won; 4.5 million won; 1.6 million won; 2.8 million won; 3 million won;

2. Determination:

A. In a case where a transfer is made to another person’s deposit account, etc., the transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was the intent of a party to a loan for consumption solely on the sole basis of the fact that such transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). In a case where a transfer is made to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, and thus, the Plaintiff’s transfer was made to the Defendant.