2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s Dong C decided to invest KRW 50 million in the Dispute Resolution (former Trade Name: E Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “D”) in which the Defendant holds shares of 1/3.

Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on February 17, 2015, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Repayment) The temporary repayment key by June 17, 2015.

Article 9 (Recognition and Recognition of Compulsory Execution) When the plaintiff fails to discharge his pecuniary obligation under this contract, the plaintiff acknowledged the absence of objection immediately after compulsory execution.

B. On February 17, 2015, the Defendant, as a creditor and the Plaintiff, had a law firm Locom prepare the same notarial deed (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) as follows, the principal contents of which are to lend KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff by the Defendant under Article 126 of the 2015 deed. On the same day, the Defendant paid KRW 30 million to D as part of the investment amount to be paid by C at the Plaintiff’s request.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(ii) evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and F, even though D does not have the intent and ability to pay dividends, if D invests KRW 50 million in the absence of an intent and ability to pay dividends, C and the Plaintiff deceivings the Defendant to pay dividends equivalent to KRW 1/6 of the above company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant and paid it to D with C’s investment money.

Therefore, since the above loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is based on the expression of intent by fraud, the plaintiff is revoked pursuant to Article 110 (1) of the Civil Code.

Even if the Defendant did not deception the Plaintiff, F had deceiving C and the Plaintiff, and the Defendant knew or could have known such deception, so the contract for the loan for consumption between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was revoked in accordance with Article 110(2) of the Civil Code.