1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on January 29, 2015, the Defendant lent the lease deposit and operating expenses of the gas station to the Defendant; (b) concluded a monetary loan agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff 2% interest on the lease deposit and to pay 1% interest on the operating expenses of the gas station; (c) from January 29, 2015 to May 22, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay 30 million won as the deposit for the lease of the gas station; (d) from January 29, 2015 to May 22, 2015, 831,820, 131,820,000 won as the deposit for the lease of the gas station; (e) the Defendant is obligated to pay 30 million won as the deposit for the lease of the gas station and 656,200,0000 won as the deposit for the gas station operation expenses; and (e) the Defendant did not pay the remainder KRW 171715,271715,715.

2. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff, but paid money from the plaintiff according to the partnership relationship with C, and the plaintiff asserts that the execution of the money of C, by itself, was made by returning the money.

3. The plaintiff's assertion that he lent money to the party, even though there is no dispute as to the fact that the money was available between the parties, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to the loan.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is insufficient to recognize that the health class, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and the testimony of witness D alone constituted a monetary loan contract with the same content as the Plaintiff alleged by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 6 is different.