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

A. On September 30, 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that on September 30, 2005, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the corporate account of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) operated by the Defendant and lent it, and sought that the Defendant pay the money stated in the purport of the claim as the principal and interest of the loan

B. 1) As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence of a declaration of intent and its contents in accordance with the contents of the document. However, if there is clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement, it may recognize facts different from the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da56616, Nov. 11, 2010). 3 (The money loan contract of September 14, 2005) cannot be used as evidence as evidence for lack of evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the document as a complete document with no signature and seal affixed thereon, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7 (including a numbered one. 4) is presumed to have been established as a notarized part of the document, and as a result, the new bank’s submission of financial transaction information with a new statement as to KRW 2060,000,000,000 as an agent of the Plaintiff’s principal and interest on KRW 261665,005,05,005,00.

D appears to have been temporarily in charge of C’s accounting affairs from August to September 2006, 2006. However, the above evidence or Eul 1.