1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff asserted as to the claim for the return of advance payment is a corporation that runs a wholesale and retail business, which is a corporation that runs a wholesale and retail business. Since January 10, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to be supplied with the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff was unable to pay KRW 19,530,00 to the Defendant with the advance payment of the long-term fish price from August 1, 2014 to September 14, 2014, but did not receive any corresponding long-term terms.

Therefore, the defendant should refund to the plaintiff the above advance payment KRW 19,530,000 and damages for delay.

Judgment

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as a whole and the arguments, even if the plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 19,530,000 to the bank account in the name of the defendant's son, as well as KRW 420,000 on August 13, 2014, and KRW 910,00 on September 6, 2014, and KRW 19,530,000 on September 14, 2014, it is recognized that even if examining each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including the serial number), it is insufficient to find that the above remitted money was an advance against the defendant, and that the plaintiff was not supplied with any means corresponding to the advance payment, and there is no other evidence to find it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff's assertion on the claim for the payment of long-term loan money was made on January 3, 2014 by supplying the defendant with long-term care equivalent to KRW 5,381,110, but did not receive the payment.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff the above fish price of KRW 5,381,00 and damages for delay.

Judgment

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole arguments, it is recognized that the plaintiff's statement that "5,381,110 won" was written in the register of early January 2014 as "Won 5,381, 110 won," and the defendant himself/herself prepared the above part.

However, the defendant asserts that the above part is written by the defendant that he did not receive the plaintiff, and in fact, from January 1, 2014, the plaintiff was the first patrol officer.