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

From September 3, 2010 to July 26, 2011, the Plaintiff lent total of KRW 200 million to D, who is his/her father, using the Plaintiff’s account from September 3 to July 26, 2011, on eight occasions. D lent the above amount to the Defendant by means of remitting it to the account in the name of E or to the account in the name of F operated by the Defendant.

Although the Defendant agreed that D and the Plaintiff would directly repay D’s debt to the Plaintiff on July 2013, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff from July 10, 2013 to November 28, 2013, and did not pay KRW 192 million to the present day.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 192 million won and damages for delay.

Judgment

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence No. 3-1 to No. 4, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 200 million to D’s Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number G) through the Plaintiff’s account from September 3, 2010 to July 26, 2011, and D transferred the above money from September 3, 2010 to July 26, 2011 to F’s account under the name of E or Defendant’s operation. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as to whether the Defendant agreed to directly repay the Defendant’s loan obligations to D’s Plaintiff, the witness witness’s testimony that corresponds thereto is difficult to believe in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the witness, etc., and it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant directly repaid the Plaintiff’s loan obligations to the Plaintiff solely on the basis of the entries in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and evidence No. 3-1 through 4-4.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.

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