1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 30,90,000,000 to the Defendant on December 12, 2015, KRW 17.9 million, KRW 12 million on March 10, 2016, and KRW 30,900,000 on April 1, 2016. The Defendant, on December 1, 2015, transferred KRW 17,90,000 to the Defendant’s Chok’s name account, KRW 13,000 on March 10, 2016, and April 1, 2016, to the Defendant’s female-friendly D account, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan 30,900,000 won and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted each of the KRW 17.9 million to the account under C’s name, KRW 12 million on March 10, 2016, and KRW 1 million on April 1, 2016 to the account under D’s name, respectively.

B. However, according to the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

It is insufficient to recognize that the money recorded in the port is the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the premise that the said money is the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant is without merit.

1) Upon the recommendation of the Defendant, etc., the Plaintiff transferred KRW 17.9 million to the F (E) account on December 9, 2015, after having joined the benz E220 joint purchase program conducted by E company upon the solicitation of the Defendant, etc. Around that time, the Defendant’s type G participated in the said joint purchase program and was in the management of the account under the Defendant’s name of son (A). In light of the timing or amount of remittance of each of the said money, the money transferred to the account under the Plaintiff’s name (C) appears to be the investment in the said program. (2) The Defendant argued that the money transferred to the account under the Plaintiff’s name was not used by the Plaintiff himself/herself, and the evidence, such as D’s written statement, presented by the Plaintiff, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant used the account under the name of D around March 4, 2016.

3 The plaintiff and the defendant are above A.

on the money set forth in the subsection.