2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made a loan to the Defendant by means of remitting the instant money to the Defendant’s deposit account, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the money claimed to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is that the money borrowed by C, which was used by the Defendant’s deposit passbook from the Defendant, is not the money borrowed by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s claim cannot be complied with.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, and 1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, and 1 and 2, and the purport of testimony and pleadings by the witness C of the trial party, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant only by the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the instant money to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant, and by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 through 8 (including the serial number). There is

① Before remitting the instant money to a deposit account in the name of the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered a casino with C and got involved in money transactions with C, etc. However, there was no particular relationship or money transactions with the Defendant.

(A) According to the statement of evidence No. 4-4, the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 2 million from the deposit account under the Defendant’s name on October 1, 2013, but according to the statement of evidence No. 7 and the testimony of witness C at the trial, the said money appears to have been transferred from B using the Plaintiff’s deposit account, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a money transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant). (2) The Plaintiff lent money of KRW 30 million to the Defendant, but did not receive a separate loan certificate from the Defendant.