2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff as added by this court.

The plaintiff and the defendant have long been aware of the fact that they had been accompanying F in Korea.

After withdrawal from F Co., Ltd., the Defendant established and operated C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) around September 2009.

C Around May 15, 2012, upon payment of USD 170,00 to D (hereinafter “D”), D entered into a loan agreement with D to lend USD 5,00,000 to D, and on May 18, 2012, D paid USD 170,00 in accordance with such agreement.

C was returned from D with D's failure to attract investment, but it was not received until now.

On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 80 million to the account in the name of C, and received respectively, KRW 20 million on April 18, 2013 and KRW 20 million on November 12, 2013.

[Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings] The plaintiff's main purport in the plaintiff's assertion was lent to the defendant as the plaintiff, on May 16, 2012. However, the defendant paid only KRW 40 million and did not pay the remainder of KRW 40 million. Thus, the defendant must pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million and its delay damages.

Preliminaryly, even if the Plaintiff lent KRW 80 million to C, rather than the Defendant, the Defendant, the representative director of C, did not have the ability to repay, thereby making the Plaintiff remit money to C, and did not confirm whether the Plaintiff was sufficiently returned from D, and did not transfer 170,000 U.S. dollars to D, and did not refund it, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff in violation of the fiduciary duty or duty of loyalty.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising therefrom.

The defendant's assertion CA.