The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On February 2019, the Plaintiff, in relation to the cost of start-up, heard false facts that the Defendant would be ordered to place an order for end-processing work from the Defendant, and deceiving the Defendant, and lent KRW 5,956,570 in total to the Defendant several times.

Accordingly, since the plaintiff revoked his/her intention of lending due to deception against the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the compensation for unjust enrichment due to the cancellation of his/her intention by deception, the compensation for damages due to deception, or the compensation for losses due to deception or the compensation for delay due to the loan contract.

B. As to the lease deposit and the university registration fee, the Plaintiff leased KRW 3 million to the Defendant on December 21, 2018, and KRW 3,484,580, total amount of the university registration fee of the Defendant’s children on February 13, 2019, and KRW 6,484,580, total amount of the loan and delay damages, the Defendant is obligated to pay the total amount of the loan and delay damages.

2. The main point of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff did not receive or borrow the business start-up cost, lease deposit, and university registration fee from the Plaintiff while teaching with the Plaintiff as an annual relationship, and thus, the Defendant asserted the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the return thereof.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) First, in relation to business start-up costs, we examine whether the Plaintiff was deceiving the Defendant to the Defendant that the Masc Manufacturing Company would place an order for a discretionary processing work, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this differently. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking restitution of unjust enrichment due to the cancellation of declaration of intent by deception or tort on the premise that the Defendant was deceiving the Plaintiff, is without merit. 2) Next, we examine whether the Plaintiff lent the Defendant a considerable amount of business start-up costs to the Defendant, and loan for consumption.