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

A. The fact that the Plaintiff lent 400,000 won to the Defendant on April 12, 2011 is not a dispute between the parties, but if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Eul, it is also recognized that the Defendant paid 400,000 won to the Plaintiff on that day (the Defendant’s assertion that this point is paid is a party).

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff extended a total of KRW 11,2,40,000 to the Defendant 15 times during a total of 15 times from March 26, 2011 to May 1, 2011, as shown in the background leading up to the lending, and that the Plaintiff additionally lent a total of KRW 11,2,40,000,000 to the Defendant. However, it is difficult to readily believe that some of the entries in Gap 1, 4, and 5, in support thereof, are insufficient to recognize this point solely on the basis of the respective entries in Gap 2, 3, and 5, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s argument for the above additional loan cannot be accepted.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the instant loan is not accepted, as evidence is insufficient to conclude.