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

A. On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the Defendant a total of KRW 70 million and KRW 90 million to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 90 million and the damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the Defendant received KRW 90 million from the Plaintiff on November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the water source was a loan for consumption, and if the Defendant asserts that it was received due to a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da221, Dec. 12, 1972) the Plaintiff is liable to prove that it was received from the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). The Plaintiff’s representative director examined the Plaintiff’s office’s office’s office on an officetel with the amount of KRW 150 million, which the Plaintiff assumed from the Defendant that the Plaintiff would return KRW 90 million to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the money to the Defendant based on the above loan agreement.

Rather, the following circumstances recognized by the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, Nos. 1, 1 and 2, namely, at the time of the plaintiff's payment of the above money to the defendant, it appears that the representative director of the plaintiff and the defendant were teaching or very close to the defendant, and the representative director of the plaintiff stated the documents and procedures necessary to establish the private business chain C through e-mail to deliver the money to the defendant on November 12, 2012, and sent the service contract to the above e-mail as attached file as of November 15, 2012 between the plaintiff and C, and the defendant.