1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In 2003, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant’s introduction while working as an applicant for the examination at the bar in 2003, and was friendly. The Plaintiff joined the sequence recruited by the Defendant and traded money.

The Plaintiff paid the extended money to the Defendant by October 2012, while the Plaintiff offered money to the Defendant on several occasions upon the Defendant’s request for the lending of money due to the lack of real estate purchase funds.

On October 2, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 25 million to the Defendant at 1.5% per month interest (the Plaintiff’s national bank paid KRW 20 million by account transfer, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million as a check). On December 2, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to convert the Plaintiff’s limit of KRW 10 million, which the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff, into the loan, and the interest was set at 1.5% per month.

In addition, on November 12, 2009, the Plaintiff set the interest rate of KRW 1.5% to the Defendant and lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant. The Defendant paid KRW 20 million among them and paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant.

On July 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to take over five of the five stories among the five stories of building 3, 4, and 5 in Seoul, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, which were operated by the Defendant, and set off KRW 10 million out of the premium with the Defendant’s loan obligations.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 35 million and damages for delay.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the entire amount already payable through continuous monetary transactions with the Plaintiff.

In light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 35 million to the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if all of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, such as the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 6 and the witness D testimony, were collected.