1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On December 17, 201, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 72 million to the Defendant’s National Bank Account (Account Number C) (hereinafter “instant money”).

After receiving the instant money, the Defendant withdrawn the money in cash and invested in D, a door-to-door seller, under the name of the Plaintiff.

On January 3, 2012, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 15,222,00 from the Defendant in his/her account in the IBK Bank (Account Number E).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the amount of this case is a loan, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 56,778,000 won in unpaid loan and damages for delay. Even if the amount of this case is a loan to D, the defendant agreed to pay the amount of 56,778,000 won in invested loss to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of 56,778,00 won in agreed amount and damages for delay.

B. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the statement Nos. 1 through 7 of the judgment, the witness F’s testimony, and the overall purport of the pleading, i.e., ① the Plaintiff transferred the instant money upon introduction to the Defendant through F invested in D, ② the Plaintiff explained that the Defendant was using the instant money as investment funds in D, ③ the Defendant invested the instant money in D’s name, ④ the Plaintiff was refunded the money as investment earnings through the Defendant, ④ the Plaintiff was refunded the money under the name of the Plaintiff, ④ the Plaintiff received a return of money through the Defendant, ⑤ there is no explicit document confirming the agreement to return the instant money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the instant money was a loan or that there was a return agreement on the loss of the instant money.

3. Conclusion.