1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant traded horse race tickets in such a way that they receive a certain percentage of fees from the visitors to horse race tracks and pay a certain percentage of fees to the others.

B. Around April 30, 2006, the Defendant traded D and Embama deposit with C, which is called C, and D requested the Defendant to exchange the check again with the Embama deposit around May 6, 2006.

On the same day, the defendant met the plaintiff with D, and the plaintiff received 39,000,000,000 won per face value, 25,000,000 won per 1 copy and per 1,00,000,000 won per face value per 1,00,000 won per face value per 1,00,000 won per face value per 1,00,00 won per face value.

C. After receiving the check of this case, the Plaintiff asked D, who was together with the Defendant, whether it is the owner of the check of this case. The defect that D is the owner of the check of this case, the name (E), resident registration number, and resident registration number on the back of the check of this case, and the mobile phone number D was also stated on the back of the check of this case.

The Plaintiff attempted to conduct a check with the representative telephone of the Sti Bank, but failed to inquire into the check, making it impossible to exchange the check of this case.

D At this time, in currency with the personnel in charge of the Sti Bank, it was confirmed that there was no error in the instant check, and the Plaintiff has the right to deposit the horse in an amount equivalent to the remainder other than the fee.

On the following day, the Plaintiff received the face value of the check by presenting the check to the CT Bank.

However, the Cmat Bank filed a lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband while changing the check of this case. At the appellate court of the above lawsuit, the mediation that the Plaintiff would pay Cmat Bank KRW 18,000,000 was concluded, and the Plaintiff paid Cit Bank KRW 18,00,000 to Cit Bank.

(e) D. D.