2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. On December 8, 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 17 million to the Defendant, who is the seat of C upon C’s request by his husband C, by means of remitting money from the Plaintiff’s husband D to the Defendant’s account.

The Defendant immediately withdrawn the said KRW 17 million from the check to the Plaintiff and C as a result of the transfer of the said KRW 17 million. However, the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant check was intended to deliver it to E on behalf of the Defendant, a creditor of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff issued the instant check to E and received a receipt.

E on November 29, 2004, lent 30 million won to the Defendant for a fixed period of 15 days, and E urged the Defendant to repay the above debt, and the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 17 million from the Plaintiff to repay the above debt to E.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan 17 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant alleged that there was money to be deposited from C on December 8, 2004, so the Defendant was notified of the bank account number in the name of the Defendant upon the request of the Plaintiff to lend the account, and there was only the fact that the entire amount of the money deposited from the Plaintiff was issued and delivered to C immediately, and there was no money borrowed from the Plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant did not borrow KRW 30 million from E on November 29, 2004, and C merely issued a cashier's check immediately and issued KRW 30 million on the same day as C requires a check issued in Seoul.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, on December 8, 2004, the fact that the plaintiff's husband deposited KRW 17 million in the defendant's account from the defendant's husband D's account on November 29, 2004 and the fact that the amount of KRW 30 million was deposited in the defendant's account on November 29, 2004 is recognized.

However, evidence No. 3 (Fact-finding) that corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion is false at the time C investigates the fraud case.