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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is a limited company B (hereinafter “B”) on May 12, 2014.

(2) The Defendant, who entered into a contract with the Company B and supplied alcoholic beverages, demanded the Plaintiff, who served as the representative director of the Company B, to provide a security for the supply of alcoholic beverages.

Accordingly, on May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff offered to the Defendant a certificate of deposit listed in the attached list (hereinafter “certificate of deposit”) issued by the Plaintiff as security.

3. The instant certificate of deposit was issued by the Plaintiff’s individual in our bank. Since the Plaintiff offered the instant certificate of deposit to the Defendant as security and then withdrawn from the Company B on March 16, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to return the certificate of deposit or pay KRW 10,220,000, the maturity payment, to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion that this case's certificate of deposit was not known to the plaintiff's individual, and it was provided as security for liquor supply by the company B rather than the plaintiff's individual, and since the present amount's outstanding amount is about KRW 100 million, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

2. The Plaintiff’s evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s individual offered the instant certificate of deposit to the Defendant as security.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s individual offered this case’s CD to the Defendant as security, it cannot be said that the Defendant is obligated to return this case’s CD to the Plaintiff or pay the Plaintiff equivalent to the maturity payment on the ground that the Plaintiff left the company B.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

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