1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C transferred each of USD 8,100 to the Defendant on June 9, 2010, and USD 33,000 to June 21, 2010, respectively.

B. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff received a loan claim amounting to KRW 50 million lent by C to the Defendant on June 2, 2010, and expressed in the instant complaint the intent to notify the assignment of claims on behalf of C, and the Defendant received a duplicate of the complaint on January 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In the first place, C, upon the Defendant’s request on June 2010, lent 510 million US dollars from the Defendant, with the Defendant lent 510 million US dollars, and the Plaintiff received the above loan claim, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million and interest for delay. 2) In the second place, if C, as alleged by the Defendant, invested 50 million in the Defendant, he embezzled the amount invested by the Defendant in addition to private teaching institutes, the Defendant embezzled the amount invested 50 million US dollars by using it outside of private teaching institutes, and thus, it is required to pay compensation for damages, 50 million US dollars and interest for delay.

B. 1 First, we examine whether the amount remitted to the Defendant by C is a loan or an investment fund.

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and the following circumstances revealed in the underlying facts, ① in the event of a general investment, it is most possible to prepare an investment agreement, etc. and determine the method of distributing profits, etc., even if the Defendant alleged that there was no agreement on investment, and further there is no discussion on the distribution of profits. ② C appears to have been unable to receive data related to the operation of a private teaching institute prior to the transfer of money from the Defendant and remitted money to the Defendant.