1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant completed the registration of incorporation in accordance with the former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (amended by Act No. 8785, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter “former Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents”) on May 31, 2007, as an association established to promote the reconstruction of B apartment constructed on the land of Ulsan-gu and two lots (hereinafter “instant project site”).

B. On March 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the construction of B apartment reconstruction project (a) with D (hereinafter “Defendant Promotion Committee”) with the chairperson of the promotion committee for the establishment of B apartment house reconstruction project (hereinafter “Defendant Promotion Committee”) to supply and demand the construction of the reconstruction apartment on the ground of the instant project site from the Defendant Promotion Committee (hereinafter “instant provisional contract”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion on March 18, 2005 and the plaintiff

8. Since a loan of KRW 1,107,00,000 in total to the Defendant over the two days, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 1,107,000,000 and the delay damages therefor.

B. Determination 1) In light of each of the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including paper numbers) submitted by the plaintiff, it is only acknowledged that the remitter, who cannot be confirmed as the plaintiff, paid the money to another corporation under a contractual relationship with the defendant's promotion committee. This circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant's promotion committee entered into a loan contract for consumption as asserted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Even if there was a monetary transaction relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant's promotion committee, the loan contract asserted by the plaintiff can be deemed to have not been fixed due date. In this case, the extinctive