All of the plaintiff's lawsuits against defendant C and D are dismissed.

The plaintiff's defendant B.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On April 28, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to lend USD 250,000 to Defendant B on April 30, 2014; (b) USD 50,000 in total; (c) USD 6% per annum; and (d) June 30, 2017; and (c) transferred USD 25,50,000 to the Plaintiff on April 28, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant remittance amount”); (d) USD 125,00 per annum; (e) USD 10,000 per annum 25,000; and (e) USD 35,000 per annum 25,000; and (e) USD 36,000 per annum 15,000,000 per annum 25,000,0000 per annum 36,000 per annum 25,000 per annum 15,2017.

2) Defendant B, in the form of form between the Plaintiff, intended to prepare an English lending and borrowing contract under the conditions as alleged by the Plaintiff. However, in the instant case, Defendant D’s investment of KRW 50 million and KRW 250 million by the Plaintiff and E respectively, intended to purchase and sell the land in Jeju and obtain profits from the sale (hereinafter “instant business”), and established Defendant B for this purpose.

Therefore, USD 250,00,00 that the Plaintiff remitted to Defendant B, is an investment loan for the instant business and is not a loan to Defendant B.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 evidence (including numbers in case of each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) written between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, it is recognized that the Plaintiff and Defendant B written out the English monetary lending contract (Moneoneoneoneber Conact, hereinafter “the instant monetary lending contract”) as alleged by the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 11, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 36-41 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the amount of the instant remittance to the defendant B.