2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant arranged that C lend KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff, and arranged that D lend KRW 5,700,000 from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and provided that KRW 3,800,000 shall be lent from the Plaintiff and that KRW 1,00,000 shall be lent from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, and that KRW 2,60,000 shall be lent from the Plaintiff as brokerage commission, provided that E lends money to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff.

B. As above, the Defendant, while running a loan brokerage business, unfairly received the total of KRW 13,100,000 from the Plaintiff, and thus, is obligated to return this to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

2. The reasoning of each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 is that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is acting as a broker for a loan and received a brokerage commission from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 3, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant did not register the loan brokerage business without the registration of the defendant, introduced credit service providers, and received KRW 13,100,000 on seven occasions as brokerage commission, and filed a complaint against the defendant due to a violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users, etc., but the prosecutor of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office only recognized that the defendant was suspected of having been subject to disposition on July 20, 2016.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which differs from this conclusion, is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.