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

A. The Plaintiff created and issued a national bank passbook under the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant passbook”) to Defendant B, and Defendant B operated an illegal futures option trading site using the instant passbook.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 85 million from March 2012 and KRW 20 million from May 10, 2012, KRW 25 million, and KRW 10 million from November 8, 2012, and KRW 4 million from February 7, 2013 from Defendant B to Defendant B for the purpose of operating the said futures option trading site.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 2 through 7 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) from December 201 to February 7, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned the Defendants a total of KRW 144,00,000 to February 7, 2013; (b) the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 114,00,000,000, excluding KRW 30,000,000, which was already repaid to the Plaintiff.

B. The money either issued or deposited by the Plaintiff to Defendant B (hereinafter “the money of this case”) is not a loan, but an investment according to the partnership relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant B at the time.

3. We examine whether the instant money either issued or deposited to Defendant B is a loan to the Defendants.

In order to prove this, the plaintiff submitted Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, but (1) among them, each account book appears to be the account book of the futures option trading site operated by the defendant B, and in the case of money borrowed from others, "loans (0 million won)", "Loans (D)", and "Loans (E)", and "A balance" and "Deposits A" are only stated with respect to the amount deposited by the plaintiff even though the purport of the loan and the indication of the lender were stated together, and they do not indicate that they are loans.