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

If the plaintiff lends money from the defendant, he/she shall hear the statement that he/she would make an apartment as security, and on February 24, 2016, 30 million won, and the same year.

3.5. 30 million won, and the same year.

3. Each of 30 million won was lent to 30 million won, but the defendant did not pay 60 million won among them.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 60 million won and damages for delay.

Judgment

Considering the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be readily concluded as a party who entered into a monetary loan contract with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① A person who requested the Plaintiff to lend money to the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, but the father of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff does not have any contact with the Defendant until he lends money.

② As the Plaintiff was unable to receive the money borrowed, C filed a criminal complaint with an investigative agency for fraud, and the Plaintiff and C agreed on August 2017 in the criminal conciliation proceedings conducted thereafter, and the Defendant was not a party to the said agreement and did not participate in the agreement process.

③ Even if the Plaintiff deposited the loan into the account under the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant was registered as the representative director D, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s age was less than 25 years of age at the time of payment of the Plaintiff’s loan, and that the Plaintiff did not neglect the Defendant until the Plaintiff paid the loan, the Plaintiff seems to have known that C was conducting financial transactions by lending the Defendant’s name.

As such, the defendant cannot be seen as a party who entered into a monetary loan contract with the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is rejected.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.