1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Each of the facts under the basis of facts below shall be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap 1, Eul 1, 2, and 3.

A. On April 18, 201, the Plaintiff transferred to the bank account in the name of the Defendant each of KRW 5 million, including KRW 10 million on April 19, 201, KRW 10 million on September 19, 201, and KRW 3 million on October 26, 201 of the same year (hereinafter “instant remittance”).

B. The defendant is the representative director of the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party C") who runs the construction business and operates the above company.

C. On March 201, Nonparty Company entered into a construction contract (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) with Nonparty D (the Plaintiff’s title) on the ground that multi-household housing is constructed (hereinafter “instant construction”) on the ground of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”).

In the instant construction contract agreement, the phrase “payment is responsible for the management of the Plaintiff.”

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion: the defendant lent money to the plaintiff as the construction fund of this case is insufficient, and the plaintiff lent money to the defendant.

(i) The amount of remittance of this case is a loan that the plaintiff personally lent to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the amount of remittance of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. Defendant’s assertion: The Plaintiff received the construction cost from the owner of the instant construction project and received it, and deposited it into the account of Nonparty Company or Defendant. The amount of the instant remittance is a part of the instant construction cost, not a loan borrowed separately from the Plaintiff.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole in light of the facts as seen earlier and the overall evidence submitted in this case’s statement, the amount of remittance of this case is the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant.