The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant around 2012, and took a teaching system with the Defendant until May 2019.

B. On March 2014, the Defendant leased 60 million won prior to the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 31.2 million to the Defendant’s account.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant, “If the Defendant did not intend to repay the said KRW 31.2 million, the Plaintiff later borrowed the said KRW 31.2 million from the Plaintiff to receive the repayment of the instant apartment house deposit, thereby deceiving the said KRW 31.2 million from the Plaintiff.” However, the prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition that was suspected against the Defendant on August 21, 2019 by the Prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 31.2 million to the defendant under the name of the deposit money for the lease on the apartment of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 31.2 million to the plaintiff, and that the defendant did not lend the above KRW 31.2 million to the defendant without any condition, and therefore there is no reason to respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. Determination 1) In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a gift, and a repayment, so it cannot be readily concluded solely on the fact that such transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such transfer was in accord with the intent of a party to a loan for consumption is the Plaintiff who asserts that such transfer was made due to a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014).