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

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted the above money to the designated party C's account at the above date.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant (Appointed Party) is the representative director of D, which is a building business, and the Appointed C is the father and the father of the defendant (Appointed Party) and the director of D who is the corporation, and the plaintiff is engaged in the building business in E.

D Co., Ltd. awarded a contract for the F Site construction, and subcontracted the river-to-land retaining wall construction (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the Plaintiff.

B. As to KRW 47,500,000 on March 2, 2012, Defendant (Appointed Party) asked the Plaintiff to issue a processed tax invoice in order to meet the purchase data, and the said money asserts to the effect that the said money was only the money in the above process and was not the borrowed money.

On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice for the construction cost to D Co., Ltd. on the same day and divided into two pages: (i) KRW 118,800,000 in the name of Kimcheon-gu2, as well as KRW 55,00,00 in the name of the construction cost of the instant additional construction cost; and (ii) on February 2, 2012, the construction cost for the term ingredients was paid on April 2, 2012 from the end of the following month after the issuance of the tax invoice; and (iii) on March 2, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,00,000 in the name of the said additional construction cost immediately after the issuance of the tax invoice; and