1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 11, 2016, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) concluded a contract with D (the Plaintiff of the representative director; hereinafter “D”) for the construction of a factory within the E industrial complex (hereinafter “instant construction”) by designating the construction cost of KRW 2,433,200,00 (the contract amount of KRW 442,40,000) and the construction period from April 18, 2016 to October 31, 2016 (the construction period of May 9, 2016).

B. The Plaintiff, a representative director, transferred KRW 200,000,000, and KRW 40,000,000 on July 11, 2016, from the account in the name of an individual passbook to the account in the name of the Defendant C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, while performing the instant construction project, lent the sum of KRW 340,000,000 in cash and KRW 240,000,000 in cash to the account in the name of passbook C, under the name of the owner himself/herself. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant Company is obligated to pay KRW 238,000,000,000 after deducting KRW 102,00,000,000 paid from the said loan from the Defendant Company and the Defendant C who received the said money in preliminary form, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, borrowed the owner’s own share from D, which the Plaintiff was the representative director, and thus, the Plaintiff, not D, could not seek a loan.

3. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money has been received between the parties, the fact that the money remitted by the plaintiff to the defendant is a loan under a monetary loan contract shall be proved by the plaintiff who asserts such loan (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In cases where it is unclear whether the plaintiff's remittance was made pursuant to a loan contract due to the lack of a document, such as a written contract or a loan certificate, between the parties, and it is unclear whether the act