1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. As to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to the Defendant, plus KRW 50 million on July 31, 2014; and (b) on July 31, 2014, KRW 2% per month; and (c) the Defendant paid KRW 8 million in total interest for eight months.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 24% interest per annum from April 1, 2015 to the day of full payment.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s bank account in the Plaintiff’s name has transferred KRW 40 million to the Defendant on July 30, 2014, KRW 10 million on July 31, 2014, and that the Defendant wired KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff’s bank account in the Plaintiff’s name eight times from September 7, 2014 to September 6, 2015.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 11, around May 14, 2013, the defendant filed a loan lawsuit against Eul, asserting that he lent KRW 100 million to C and D, the Busan District Court, 2017Da313949, and the court affirmed the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive on February 22, 2018, stating that "A corporation and D jointly paid KRW 40 million to the defendant by using the bank account in the name of the plaintiff as a repayment of the loan of KRW 100 million to the plaintiff's father E, using the bank account in the name of the plaintiff on July 30, 2014, and KRW 50 million on July 31, 2014, on the ground that "A corporation and D shall jointly and severally pay the defendant the remainder of KRW 50 million and damages for delay."

In light of the above circumstances and the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. As to the counterclaim

A. Basic facts 1) On November 7, 2012, the Defendant is a Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for the purpose of the business of door-to-door delivery and fireworks delivery on November 7, 2012

-.