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

A. On Nov. 4, 2013, the Plaintiff sought to lend KRW 30 million to C on Nov. 4, 2013. Since C, as a member of the fraternity operated by the Defendant, was entitled to KRW 30 million on Apr. 1, 2014, as a member of the fraternity operated by the Defendant, it agreed that “the Defendant would directly pay the said fraternity to the Plaintiff without paying it to C,” and the Defendant guaranteed C’s obligation to return the loan to the Plaintiff.

B. Accordingly, on November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 27 million after deducting KRW 30 million from the advance interest of KRW 30 million. Although the maturity date arrives on April 1, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to C, and the Defendant, who received the payment, did not perform the obligation to return the loan to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 27 million and its delay damages pursuant to the above guarantee agreement.

2. According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 2, at the time when the plaintiff and Eul set up a loan certificate, we agree that, at the time of drawing up the loan certificate, the defendant will be present together at the time of drawing up the loan certificate on April 1.

Although it is recognized that “the Plaintiff was aware of the fact,” and according to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Defendant, as a leader, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had already been aware of the fact on November 2, 2013 due to C’s default of fraternity dues, etc., and the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff, was committed by the Defendant, and paid the fraternity dues to C on April 1, 2014.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant guaranteed or guaranteed C's obligation to return the loan to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.