1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant would pay the loan amounting to KRW 570 million and damages for delay thereof, and that the principal amount is KRW 51 million as the cause of claim from the amendment made on February 26, 2015, and the amount to be paid at KRW 30 million as the intermediate deposit was appropriated to the interest, and the interest is calculated again, and the amount to be paid at KRW 500 million is equal to KRW 500 million if the interest is calculated.

In regard to this, the defendant did not receive the amount equivalent to KRW 570 million from the plaintiff, and the fact that he received the loan is not even more.

2. According to Articles 249(1) and 254(1) and 254(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, a complaint must specify the purport and cause of the petition. Where the purport and cause of the petition are not specified, the court shall ex officio order the correction and dismiss the suit if it does not comply with the order of correction.

(1) On March 13, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2011Da11459 Decided March 13, 2014 (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da11459). Upon ex officio, the Plaintiff appointed a law firm (Attorney in charge) as a legal representative and proceeded with the instant lawsuit. This Court ordered that the Plaintiff, on November 19, 2015, on January 21, 2016, shall clarify the cause of the claim three times at the date of pleading, and on April 21, 2016, on April 3, 2016, submit relevant evidentiary documents, but the Plaintiff did not comply with the order. The said legal representative submitted a resignation certificate to this court on June 7, 2016, and even if the Plaintiff still did not seek any cause of claim at the date of pleading No. 11:40 on June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff’s legal statement and amendment cannot be accepted as a witness, instead of the Plaintiff’s assertion.