1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of the loan on the premise that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant on October 1, 2012, under the condition that the Plaintiff lent the loan to the Defendant on a fixed date.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that C, a female student of the defendant, borrowed the above money from the plaintiff and provided the defendant's passbook by means of receiving the money.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff, while the defendant introduced himself as a high school teacher, he was planned to operate the above house in the U.S.E. while requesting the plaintiff to lend KRW 100 million directly to the plaintiff, and that the defendant borrowed KRW 100 million by entering the account to be transferred in his name, and that he did not lend it to C.

Ultimately, the key issue of the instant case is whether the other party who borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff is “Defendant” or “C”.

The court concluded that the borrower who borrowed money from the plaintiff was not the defendant, after reviewing the arguments and evidences presented in the instant case in detail.

The reasons are as follows.

Even though the Plaintiff borrowed a large amount of KRW 100 million from the Defendant at the time of the U.S.A., the Plaintiff did not secure any disposition document to support the conclusion of a monetary loan contract, such as a certificate of direct loan.

The Plaintiff, upon receipt of an order stating a remittance account from the Defendant and transfer KRW 100 million to that account, may not be changed to have all documentary evidence of the loan. However, such evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is acknowledged only to the fact that “the Plaintiff wired KRW 100 million to the passbook in the name of the Defendant.” Unless other evidence or circumstances are supported, the Plaintiff’s name of receiving the loan is in fact pursuant to Article 598 (Definition of Loan for Consumption) of the Civil Act, as alleged by the Plaintiff in this case.