The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts paid KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant Company on July 26, 2017, and KRW 50,000,000 on July 28, 2017, and KRW 100,000,000 on July 31, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant money”) may be recognized either as having no dispute between the parties, or as having paid KRW 200,00,00,00 on the entire pleadings, based on the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 5-1.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case is the cause of the claim of this case, and that the amount of this case is set at 1.5% per month and lent interest to the defendant company.

3. In light of the statements in Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3-2, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 5-2, Eul evidence No. 6, and testimony of Gap evidence No. 5-2, Gap evidence No. 6, witness C, and D submitted by the plaintiff as evidence consistent with the assertion, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the money of this case is a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The motion may be freely withdrawn without the consent of the other party before the commencement of the investigation of evidence, but once the investigation of evidence has been completed, the withdrawal is not allowed.

Therefore, the evidence No. 4 appears to have been examined on the date of the first pleading of this case according to the records (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da13172, Apr. 28, 2006).

On the other hand, the evidence No. 4 attached the seal of the defendant company that the plaintiff kept with the consent of C, a real manager of the defendant company, on August 20, 2019.

As such, the presumption of the establishment of the petition is broken, and there is no other evidence that the act of affixing the seal is based on the legitimate title delegated by the person who prepared the petition, and eventually, the evidence No. 4 cannot be used as evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion. 4. The plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless.