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

2. In full view of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 27,00,000 to a deposit account (Account Number: C) in the name of the Defendant on March 9, 2016, based on the health account, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1 as to the Defendant’s account; and (b) the overall purport of the pleadings.

However, in light of the following facts of Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, 7 and the plaintiff's identity, or the plaintiff's identity, each of Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 is insufficient to regard the borrower of the loan of this case as the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view the borrower of the loan of this case as a corporate entity D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

① On October 27, 2015, the Defendant was appointed as the representative director of the instant company and was dismissed on May 23, 2016.

② On March 10, 2016, the Defendant and E, who served as the head of the management headquarters of the instant company, indicated the date when the Defendant and E requested a monetary loan to the Defendant and EF on March 10, 2016. However, in light of the fact that the date when the Plaintiff transferred KRW 27,00,000 to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant is March 9, 2016, this seems to be an error.

The plaintiff's spouse requested F to lend 30,000,000 won from the representative director office of the company of this case to F.

③ On March 10, 2016, the Defendant transferred KRW 27,000,000 transferred by the Plaintiff to the deposit account (Account Number: G) in the name of the instant company.

④ Around April 2016, F, the Plaintiff’s spouse, was repaid KRW 22,00,000, out of the leased principal from E by the managing director of the instant company.

⑤ On April 19, 2016, F, the spouse of the Plaintiff, is the Defendant.