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

A. On August 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 127,320,50 in total to the Defendant’s name account or a third party’s account known to the Defendant during the period from August 11, 2016 to December 16, 2016, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend money that he/she is entitled to receive from the Defendant’s head D without money.

On October 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 120,000,000 to the account under the name of G related persons of the above business establishment, which the Defendant informed of, on October 25, 2016, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend money under the name of “F” in Seoul E-gu.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 247,320,500 won and damages for delay.

B. The defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff at all.

The defendant only introduced the I Chairperson operating "H" and the J operating "F," which is a club in H, to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff made an investment in I and J.

The money remitted by the defendant from the plaintiff is received as compensation, etc. for introducing investors.

2. Determination

A. According to each entry in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including each number), the facts of recognition are recognized that KRW 82,020,500 in total from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant’s name during the period from August 11, 2016 to December 16, 2016, totaling KRW 45,300,000, respectively, was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant’s name; and KRW 100,000,000 was remitted from the N account under the Plaintiff’s name to the G account on October 25, 2016; and on the same day, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s account was remitted from the Plaintiff’s name to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s claim, however, in light of the following circumstances, which can be known through the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including various numbers), the above recognized facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the monetary lending asserted by the Plaintiff, and evidence to acknowledge otherwise.