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

A. C and the Defendant, the representative director of the Plaintiff, jointly agreed to jointly undertake the new apartment construction project on real estate outside D and 9 lots of land, and the Plaintiff, in relation to the said real estate, shall pay KRW 3 billion as the amount of the right of retention to the Defendant who holds a letter of agreement on the right of retention among the persons who claim the right of retention in relation to the said real estate, but the KRW 100 million among them was paid for an asset securitization company and a negotiated contract, and the remainder was paid at

B. On November 12, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 60 million, which is part of the above KRW 100 million from C, and issued to C each lien agreement note in the name of the lien holder E, F, and Handong General Construction Co., Ltd., which he had as security for the preceding day.

In addition, the defendant has regularly borrowed KRW 60 million to G, who is the plaintiff's intra-company director, for the purpose of postponement or suspension of the public sale in D at Kimhae-si.

“The” has issued a certificate of borrowing.

C. After concluding a private contract with a special purpose company on November 28, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the remainder of KRW 40 million to the Defendant on December 1, 2014 at the Defendant’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 2-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 14-13

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 100 million and the damages for delay.

3. In light of the facts found in the judgment below, although the form of a loan certificate was withdrawn, the amount of KRW 100 million paid by the plaintiff to the defendant shall be deemed as the amount paid pursuant to the above joint project agreement, and the loan cannot be deemed as the only evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff's assertion, although there is no lien on the above real estate, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff to solve the right of retention.