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

A. On August 16, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant borrowed and used KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and decided to pay that amount by the Defendant’s direct payment to the third company that the Plaintiff intended to make an investment. The Defendant did not pay that amount directly to the company and did not return that amount to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion was transferred KRW 100,000,000 from the plaintiff to the creditors of the company Orala District Co., Ltd., and the defendant did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff as interest and service charges.

2. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred KRW 100,000,000 to one bank account under the defendant's name on August 16, 201.

However, the Plaintiff did not submit any documentary evidence to prove the lending relationship, such as the loan certificate under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff and taking over the above KRW 100,000,00,000, was guilty of fraud. However, on October 31, 2013, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office rendered a decision of suspicion under the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office 2013-type No. 29129 (Evidence No. 3) (Evidence No. 3), there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to return the above amount paid to the Defendant from the above date of the instant lawsuit to the date of the instant lawsuit, and that the Plaintiff had withdrawn the instant lawsuit on June 15, 2017, but it was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000 to the Defendant even if comprehensive evidence submitted by the Defendant, including the above remittance fact and other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.