1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. The plaintiff asserts that on May 10, 2007, the plaintiff lent KRW 3,000,000 to the defendant as to the cause of the claim.

In this regard, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not borrow the loan from the Plaintiff, but did not claim that the Defendant lent KRW 3,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff that was immediately needed to handle the auction case on May 7, 2007.

According to each entry in the evidence No. 1, No. 1, and No. 3, the defendant remitted KRW 3,000,000 to the passbook in the name of the plaintiff's wife on May 7, 2007, and on May 10, 2007, the defendant transferred KRW 3,000,000, which is the loan of the plaintiff's assertion from the passbook in the name of the defendant in the name of the head of Tong in the name of the plaintiff's wife on May 10, 207.

In light of the above facts of recognition, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending the plaintiff's assertion only with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed as it is without merit.

(The plaintiff's claim for each loan was withdrawn by the exchange change of the lawsuit filed in this court on March 2012, and the judgment of the first instance was invalidated).