The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with the Defendant, and with respect to the real estate located in Yangyang-gun, a multi-family housing project site to be promoted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate consulting service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the purport that the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the owner of each real estate located within the said project site, and that the Plaintiff shall pay the service cost in return for the work provided by the Defendant. B. The Plaintiff’s payment details against the Defendant is the following table (hereinafter “instant table”).

The amount of money was paid as indicated above. On September 30, 200 1, 200,000 on September 30, 2008, 200 on December 29, 2008, 30,000 on December 29, 200 3, 200 on December 29, 2003, 200 on May 12, 2009, 50,000 on June 3, 200, 200 on June 12, 200, 200 on June 15, 200, 200, July 19, 200, July 5, 19, 2000, July 5, 2000, August 19, 200, 2008; the purport of each of the arguments No. 17330, Sep. 28, 2009>

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 74.8 million to the Defendant totaling KRW 74.8 million from May 12, 2009 to September 22, 2009, according to the respective descriptions and arguments stated in Items A and 1, 3 through 7, as well as the overall purport of the arguments, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 74.8 million to the Defendant from May 12, 2009 to September 22, 2009.

(hereinafter “each of the instant loans”). ① The Plaintiff received money borrowed from the Defendant, stating that “the Plaintiff borrowed money,” while paying the said money.

(2) When a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention shall be recognized with the contents indicated therein unless there is any reflective proof.

In this regard, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to deliver a “money borrowed” certificate even though the Plaintiff paid the service cost under the instant service contract.