1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The party's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that around April 2006, the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant, and the defendant claimed that he paid KRW 50 million among them, and the defendant first invested KRW 100 million in the merchandise coupon business through the defendant, and then the defendant paid KRW 50 million when he stored for the plaintiff after returning the above amount of KRW 100 million.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not borrow the above money, but was punished for embezzlement by using it at will while the Plaintiff invested KRW 100 million in the gift certificate business operated by C with the Defendant’s introduction, only guaranteed the return of the said investment amount, and the said KRW 100 million was returned from C and kept for the Plaintiff.

However, the Plaintiff exempted KRW 40 million on January 7, 2008, and thereafter the Defendant and the guarantor repaid KRW 55 million from around that time to around 2011, and the Plaintiff exempted the remainder of KRW 5 million in around 2011, thereby extinguishing all the Defendant’s obligations.

2. Determination

A. The nature of the instant debt 1) As to the primary argument, Gap evidence No. 1 (the Plaintiff stated that around April 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant. However, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Defendant received KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff under the pretext of investing in the merchandise coupon business for the operation of a merchandise coupon among April 2006, and invested in Eul on July 2006, 2006.

8. The facts found guilty of embezzlement while returning KRW 50 million from Haman C and being kept for the plaintiff, and the facts that the plaintiff's husband D, as the witness, stated in the above criminal procedure can be acknowledged. In light of these facts, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant prepared the above loan certificate to the effect that it guarantees the return of the plaintiff's investment amount, and therefore, it is sufficient to consider that the defendant prepared the above loan certificate to the effect that it guarantees the return of the plaintiff