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

A. Upon receipt of a request from the Defendant to lend money, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she lent money to the Defendant’s account four times from January 13, 2010 to January 19, 2010, by remitting the sum of KRW 90 million to the Defendant’s account.

At the time, the defendant agreed to repay the above borrowed money as soon as possible, but did not perform it at all.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 90 million and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant runs a construction business, such as the construction of a new apartment or house, and that it was necessary to transfer KRW 90 million to the owner D with regard to construction works located in Daegu Northern-gu C in January 2010.

However, the defendant's direct transfer of the above amount to D is a procedural problem, and first, the defendant's pro-friendly E pays the amount of KRW 90 million to the plaintiff, and then he receives it again from the plaintiff to the defendant's account, and the defendant does not borrow KRW 90 million from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, at the defendant's recommendation, extracted only certain financial transaction details and argued that it is a loan in a detention way, as the plaintiff did not obtain expected profits after investing in the F Multi-family housing business at Suwon.

2. The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s bank account, KRW 30 million on January 13, 2010, KRW 30 million on January 14, 2010, KRW 25 million on January 18, 2010, KRW 500,000 on January 19, 201, and KRW 90 million on January 19, 201, to the Defendant’s bank account, may be recognized either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole by combining the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1.

However, since the process of remitting money can be diverse, the fact that the above remittance amount is a loan under a monetary loan contract must be proved by the plaintiff who asserts it.

However, the defendant did not borrow the above KRW 90 million remitted by the plaintiff, but only returned KRW 90 million paid in cash by the defendant's birth again.