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

A. The plaintiff asserts that he lent KRW 150,000,000 to the defendant on February 5, 2003, November 2003, and November 26, 2003 respectively, and that the plaintiff sought the payment of each of the above loans to the defendant. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18140, Feb. 5, 2003; Presidential Decree No. 17090, Nov. 20, 2003; Presidential Decree No. 18170, Nov. 2003; Presidential Decree No. 18170, Nov. 26, 2003; Presidential Decree No. 18170, Nov. 26, 2003; Presidential Decree No. 17090, Nov.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5-1, 6-1, 9-2, 13 of the evidence Nos. 5-1, 6-2, and 5-1, 6-2, and 13 of the evidence, the plaintiff paid KRW 150,000,000 to C for the contract performance of the Corporation F (hereinafter "F") in connection with the tourist destination development project promoted by the defendant to C, D, and E on February 5, 2003; the plaintiff was guilty of the judgment of Daejeon District Court which found the above facts of embezzlement of C, 25,000,00 won around November 20, 200 for the defendant's business expenses, and 20,000 won around November 26, 2003. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17008, Mar. 200; Presidential Decree No. 17003, Nov. 26, 2003>

However, according to the evidence Nos. 5-1, 6-1 of the evidence Nos. 5-1, C, D, and E received the above KRW 150,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and issued the borrower with the receipt for the above money stated as “G and H”. It can be recognized that C received the above sum of KRW 25,00,000 from the Plaintiff and entered as “F (State) representative director G return.”

In light of this, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff, as above, committed a factual act with the Defendant’s director to pay the above money to C, D, and E as the Plaintiff, not G, H, or F, as the lender of each of the above money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's request for the payment of each of the above loans against the defendant.