1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, while operating the Company D, was aware of the Defendant B with regard to the supply of melting and melting instruments.

B. On October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5,000,000 to Defendant B’s account, and on February 3, 2014, remitted KRW 45,000,00 to Defendant B’s account.

C. On May 30, 2014, Defendant B remitted KRW 10,000,00 to the Plaintiff.

On October 21, 2014, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with Defendant C on the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment co-ownership share”) and completed the registration of transfer to Defendant C on December 3, 2014.

[Based on recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1 and Gap evidence 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff 1) lent 50,000,000 won to the defendant Eul, and the defendant Eul repaid 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant Eul is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of 40,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff. 2) although there is a fact that the plaintiff was remitted money from the defendant Eul, it is not lending money, but it is invested by the plaintiff with the construction and operation of the Internet gambling site operated by Eul and the defendant.

B. 1) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties have given and received money, the cause is a loan for consumption, and the defendant is liable to prove that the plaintiff asserts that he was given and received money as a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). 2) The above basic facts and each of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 are insufficient to recognize that there had been a monetary loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant B, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against Defendant B.

3. The Plaintiff filed a claim against Defendant C with Defendant C with the loan claim against Defendant B as preserved bonds.