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

2. As to whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant, according to the health account statement in Gap evidence No. 1, as to whether or not the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000 to the Defendant, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant to lend KRW 40,000,000 with the Defendant on March 20, 2014, KRW 10,000,000 on March 26, 2014, KRW 10,000 on June 28, 2014, and KRW 5,000 on June 29, 2014, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above fact alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff delivered KRW 40,00,00 with the Defendant the subject matter of the loan for consumption, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff delivered the said subject matter of the loan for consumption to the Defendant.

(E) In light of the above, the plaintiff asserts that D, who is a son, requires money to be paid to the defendant, and that he borrowed the above KRW 40,00,000 by demanding that he/she borrowed money only for 2,3 months. According to the above argument of the plaintiff, according to the above argument of the plaintiff, the other party to the loan for consumption contract can be viewed as D, not the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

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