A. From May 201, the Defendant, from around May 201, entrusted C with the sale and purchase of futures options.

B. Around July 2011, the Plaintiff introduced C from the Defendant and had C operate the futures option trading, etc. like the Defendant.

C. On July 19, 201, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Korean bank account in the name of the Defendant’s words, and KRW 63 million to the Korean bank account in the name of E, the Defendant’s seat on September 5, 2011.

Each of the above money was transferred to a securities account in the name of D and E (hereinafter “Defendant’s each securities account”) in which C operated the Defendant’s funds on the date of remittance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff borrowed money necessary for investment from the Defendant to lend the Defendant a sum of KRW 93 million as stated in paragraph (1)(c). As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant acted in collusion with the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff incurred losses in managing the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s funds, and the Defendant did not borrow the said money from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s respective securities account.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the items in Gap, Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, Eul's testimony and arguments, and the entire purport of Gap's testimony and arguments, i.e., Eul operated a futures option office in an officetel near the F Station leased by the defendant around July 201, and the plaintiff and the defendant are deemed to have participated in the management of Eul's funds while staying in the above office. ② When the plaintiff and the defendant's funds are transferred to each securities account, Eul takes charge of futures option trading and received part of the profits, and managed the deposit account linked to the plaintiff and the defendant's securities account at will, and C had the plaintiff's own discretion.