1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 7, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 70 million to the account in the name of the Defendant, a joint Defendant C’s child, (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. The Plaintiff was issued a notarial deed of promissory notes dated January 13, 2010 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) at a face value of KRW 70 million at a face value of January 201, as the issuer C (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

C. From the Defendant B’s account to the Plaintiff’s account, the sum of KRW 24,50,000 was transferred from February 5, 2010 to January 18, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the loan of this case is a credit business by the defendant, his father, who is his father, proposed that the defendant should pay 30 million won interest per month if he lends 70 million won to the defendant, and that C shall be given a joint and several guarantee for the loan of this case to which C received the Notarial Deed of this case as the issuer.

Therefore, the Defendant should complete the instant loan.

3. In light of the circumstances described below, it is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion solely on the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

① It is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff lent the instant loan to the Defendant solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff remitted the instant loan to the Defendant’s account, and that the amount equivalent to the interest was deposited from the Defendant’s account.

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 and all the arguments, the actual operator of the lending company was Eul, the father of the defendant, and C was a bad credit holder, so the defendant's name and his account was used, and the plaintiff also lent a large amount of money to C by means of remitting money using the defendant's account in the name of the defendant, in addition to the loan of this case.