1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1-3, No. 4, 5, and 6, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the Defendant’s post office account KRW 7 million on June 24, 2015, ② KRW 2 million on July 14, 2015, ③ KRW 27 million on July 27, 2015, and KRW 36 million on July 27, 2015.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) In the first place, the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 36 million to the Defendant on December 31, 2015. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 36 million to the Plaintiff. 2) Preliminaryly, if C was to receive money from the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff by using the Defendant’s account, the Defendant also participated in or aided the Defendant’s tort and is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 36 million in compensation for damages.

In addition, if the defendant allowed C to use his account, the defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 36 million as the account holder at least as the account holder.

B. The Defendant received money from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s post office account while making a monetary transaction with the Plaintiff on the basis that Defendant A, who was working in the Defendant Ansan Livestock Industry Cooperatives, is in the custody of the Defendant’s cash card for the Defendant’s post office. The Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff; there was no fact that C took part in or aided the said illegal act; and there was no substantial benefit from the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to the Defendant’s account. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is without merit.

3. Determination

A. It is not enough to recognize the fact of lending money of the Plaintiff’s assertion only with the above remittance of funds and the statement of Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 8 (including each number, if any) as to the primary claim (the claim for lending). There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is justified.