2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. On October 6, 2010, the Plaintiff prepared a cash custody certificate with the Defendant, the Defendant’s husband, and the custodian C, the above C, and the custody amount of which are KRW 40,000,00 (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”).

B. The cash custody certificate of this case was affixed with the Defendant’s seal imprint affixed to the Defendant’s name, and the Defendant’s seal impression issued by the said C was attached thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff prepared a cash custody certificate of this case with the Defendant’s husband C, who received the power of representation from the Defendant, and lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant and the above C (hereinafter “instant contract”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 40,000,000 and the damages for delay.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant did not grant the right of representation to conclude the contract of this case to the above C, and the defendant does not have the obligation to pay the borrowed money

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, each of the above evidence, part of witness C at the trial, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant are not aware of each other, and the loan money under the contract at issue seems to have been remitted to the above C’s account and used the above C. ② The Defendant’s power of attorney at the time of the contract at issue was not attached, and the attached certificate was issued by the Defendant’s agent at the time of the contract at issue. ③ The above C was present at the date of pleading upon delegation of the Defendant’s power of attorney at the court below, but it was true that the Defendant and the above C were not present at the date of pleading. However, it was not acceptable to the Defendant and the above C’s assertion that the above Party to the contract at issue was present for the settlement of the case on behalf of the Defendant who is the wife.