1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are those who were born under H and C sludge.

B. On October 23, 201, the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 650,000,000,000 to KRW 40,000 on November 20, 201, and KRW 1,250,000 on November 9, 2012 (hereinafter “instant money”).

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

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) leased the instant money on three occasions from October 23, 201 to November 9, 2012 at the Defendant’s request that the Plaintiff lend money for personal reasons. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1250,00 and the damages for delay therefrom. (2) Although the Defendant received the instant money from the Plaintiff, it was not borrowed from the Plaintiff, it was not a loan, but a donation made by the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant’s birth gift, etc., the Defendant is not obligated to return the instant money.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). The Plaintiff wired the instant money to the Defendant, as seen above. However, the following circumstances, namely, ① the Plaintiff, while living as a professional soldier, transferred money to the account of a child-friendly C several times from Jun. 2006 to Nov. 201, 201, which appears to have been used as the living cost of the Defendant and the Defendant, and ② the Plaintiff transferred the instant money to the Defendant at the time of transfer of money to the Defendant, namely, the Plaintiff’s gift cycle for the Defendant’s children, etc.