2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

(1) On September 28, 201, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 56 million to the Defendant’s account.

(2) On November 3, 2011, the Defendant remitted KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, and the summary of the argument by the parties concerned in the whole pleadings, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent KRW 56 million to the defendant on September 28, 201, and on November 3, 2011, the plaintiff was paid KRW 30 million from the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loan amount of KRW 26 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant borrowed the instant loan from the Plaintiff and borrowed the instant loan from the Plaintiff in order to raise the business funds to be borne by the Defendant, who operated the business using the closed tension with the Defendant. The Defendant borrowed the instant loan from the Plaintiff in order to raise the business funds to be borne by the Defendant. At the time, C cannot engage in financial transactions under the name of the Defendant, and only received the loan from the Defendant’s account.

Judgment

In addition to the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the instant loan to the Defendant’s account, there is no other evidence supporting the fact that the instant loan was a loan to the Defendant, and rather, according to the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 9, and the purport of the testimony and pleading by the witness of the trial court C, the instant loan can be acknowledged as follows, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) Around the time when the Plaintiff leased the instant loan, the Defendant and C were running a business using the closed voltage system, and the Defendant agreed to invest the pertinent permit, and C decided to invest the funds, respectively.

The loan of this case was used as a business fund to be borne by C, and C was in a situation in which it was impossible to conduct financial transactions in its own name at the time.

On November 3, 2011, the defendant transferred 30 million won from the profit of joint business between the defendant and C to the plaintiff at the request of C.