대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff asserts that he lent a total of KRW 127,00,000 to the Defendant, who is the birthee, as follows, and demanded the return of KRW 57,779,122, excluding KRW 64,220,878, which was not refunded to the Defendant, out of the entire rent deposit for the 22th floor E of Seongdong-gu Seoul building D, Seongdong-gu Seoul, the Defendant owned, for the return of KRW 40,00,000 deposited on April 20 and April 14, 2017.
(1) No. 10,000 No. 10,000 No. 10,000 on May 13, 2015, and No. 10-10,000 on May 18, 2015, the Defendant’s supply of cash for employees shall demand cash payment of KRW 5,000 on May 28, 2015, KRW 10,000 on May 20, 200, KRW 1-1-1,00 on May 20, 200, KRW 10,000 on July 2, 2015, KRW 10,00 on KRW 10,00 on July 10, 200, KRW 20-10 on July 10, 2015, KRW 0-10,00 on May 10, 200 on May 10, 200
2. We examine the judgment, and even if all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff are integrated, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending the plaintiff's assertion, so the above argument by the plaintiff is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.