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

A. On August 17, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 60,000,00 to a bank account under C’s name.

B. On September 21, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40,000,00 to the bank account under the Defendant’s name.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) On August 17, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant by remitting KRW 60,000,000 to the bank account under C’s name designated by the Defendant. On September 21, 2007, the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant by remitting KRW 40,000,000 to the bank account under the Defendant’s name. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 100,000,000, and damages for delay thereof. 2) The Defendant’s assertion did not borrow each of the above money from the Plaintiff.

60,000,000 won that the Plaintiff remitted to C on August 17, 2007 is the amount that the Defendant was unaware.

40,000,000 won, which was remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on September 21, 2007, was donated from the Plaintiff on the basis of the indication of Macium as to the fact that the Defendant had assisted the Plaintiff’s work at that time.

B. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s testimony of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and witness D alone was a loan to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20000, Sep. 21, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20000, Sep. 21, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20357, Sep. 21, 2007>

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.