1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are relatives of South Korea.

B. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 70 million to the account under the name of the Defendant.

C. On October 17, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s father C entered into a lease contract with the deposit amount of KRW 140 million and the contract term from November 14, 2009 to November 13, 201 with respect to the E Apartment 101 Dong 1102 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The said KRW 70 million that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant was used as part of the deposit money for the lease of the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff remitted 70 million won to the defendant on November 9, 2009 is the amount that the defendant borrowed from the plaintiff under the name of his parent's deposit. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the above loan.

B. The Defendant’s assertion amounting to KRW 70 million is that the Defendant, who was in charge of entering into a lease contract with the parent and the director, etc. at the time of the parent’s deposit, received the transfer on behalf of the parent, and the Plaintiff donated the parent’s thickness through the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's receipt of the above money and stated that "the money will be returned without any delay later." However, this purport is that the parent should return the money if the deposit is recovered due to his failure to live with the thickness, and a new lease contract was concluded twice after the expiration of the lease period for the apartment of this case. Since all the deposit amounts are included in the deposit for the deposit, the above KRW 70 million is included in the deposit for the deposit for the deposit, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.

3. In a case where the defendant asserts the cause of receiving and receiving money, the plaintiff is responsible to prove that it was received due to the loan for consumption, and each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the serial number) is alone.