1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 201, the Plaintiff, as a financial account under the name of the Defendant, remitted each total of KRW 58 million from February 19, 201, to December 20, 201, and from February 19, 2012 to December 20, 2013.

B. C is the father of the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 3 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was known to the Defendant through C’s introduction, and C requested the Defendant to lend KRW 150 million to the Defendant, on the ground that there was insufficient establishment funds to establish the agricultural company D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”). On December 21, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 150 million to the Defendant.

After that, C requested the Defendant to lend KRW 58 million from February 19, 2012 to December 20, 2013 as the operating funds of D are insufficient, and C lent KRW 58 million to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant took office as the representative director of D and acted jointly with C, such as having C use the financial account under his name, as if he were engaged in both the capital business and the feed manufacturing business of D, etc.

Therefore, as a party who directly entered into a loan for consumption, or entered into a loan for consumption through C’s agency, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 28 million to the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant lent the name to C in the course of operating the said business, the Defendant is liable for the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, and thus, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the total amount of KRW 28 million to the Plaintiff.

B. First of all, as to whether the Defendant was either a party to a loan for consumption that was directly concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff or a party to a loan for consumption that was concluded through C’s agency act, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other

Rather, evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 1 to 5 respectively.