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

A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 71,400,000 to the Defendant by September 19, 2006, including lending KRW 40,000 to the Plaintiff around 1993.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above loan to the plaintiff.

B. Around 1993, the Defendant filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment with the name of the Defendant’s family members, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant. The Plaintiff except the Defendant and the Defendant’s family members registered and used only as the members.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return KRW 3 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

A. The loan claims are not sufficient to admit the plaintiff's above assertion only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 4-2 to 6, Gap evidence 18, Gap evidence 20, and Gap evidence 21 (in light of the above entries and the plaintiff's assertion itself were reversed) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them otherwise.

(In addition, in addition to loans claimed by the defendant as of September 19, 2006, it seems that the prescription has expired as the defendant's point of view).

With respect to a claim for unjust enrichment, the descriptions of evidence No. 14 and evidence No. 19-1 and No. 2 are insufficient to admit the plaintiff's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(C) The plaintiff's claim of this case in this case is dismissed as it is without merit.