1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around December 2003, became aware of each other by running an entertainment drinking house.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant made a preparation for opening an entertainment tavern business by securing a woman to work as an employee. In the process, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant in cash, and paid a considerable amount of money for other expenses, etc.

C. However, entertainment tavern opening business was interrupted, and the defendant demanded the return of funds invested to the plaintiff and there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.

During that process, the defendant issued a promissory note on September 14, 2004 at par value of KRW 93,000,000, and the due date of January 13, 2005; the payee, the plaintiff, the place of issuance, the place of payment, and the place of payment. A notary public issued a promissory note on September 14, 2004 at issue to the plaintiff. The said promissory note was fair as the certificate prepared by the attorney-at-law in charge of the law firm Hanma, No. 156

In the second half of 2004, the Plaintiff was investigated by an investigative agency due to suspected facts, such as “constition and intimidation of the Defendant,” etc. The investigation was suspended on the grounds that the Defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, and the investigation was completed on October 2010 and then the non-prosecution disposition (constition of evidence and the completion of the statute of limitations) was completed.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6 evidence, Eul's 1 through 8 (including Serial number), the whole purport of pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 93,00,000 to the Plaintiff as the return of the loan, on February 2004, because the Plaintiff received the loan and lent the loan in cash directly to the Defendant or to the account designated by the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff should pay KRW 93,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

The loan for consumption that generates the legal effect of the return of loan is established by the agreement that the lender agrees to transfer the ownership of money and other substitutes to the other party and the borrower shall return the same kind, quality, and quantity of goods (Article 598 of the Civil Code), and Gap submitted by the plaintiff.