1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff

On March 23, 2005, the plaintiff set the interest rate of KRW 57 million to the defendant on September 30, 2005 and lent it to the defendant on September 30, 2005.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 21,000,000 won and damages for delay, which are part of the loan, to the plaintiff.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 57 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise of the lease cannot be recognized.

The Plaintiff, while lending a large amount of KRW 57 million to the Defendant who did not have any particular transactional relationship, did not receive a loan certificate, etc.

This is an example in light of the transaction practices of the general monetary loan contract.

On September 2002, the Plaintiff appears to have purchased the shares of C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) with the introduction of the Defendant around September 2002, and also attended the general meeting of shareholders of C.

On April 12, 2005, a notary public obtained certification under section 2243 of Dongwon General Law Firm, etc. in the name of the plaintiff in the name of the defendant on April 12, 2005, stated that "A purchases C's shares through the introduction of the defendant. After purchase, a notary public shall transfer 20,000 shares to the plaintiff in consideration of the defendant's intentional responsibility, which is the introduction, by raising an objection to the purchase process, after purchase, and transfer 20,00 shares to the plaintiff, who is the introduction, and shall confirm that the plaintiff shall be responsible for any shares

[A. 13 Evidence No. 13 (Authentication). Unless there are special circumstances, such as assertion and proof that a notary public did not go through the procedure under the Notary Public Act in the authentication of a deed signed by a notary public, the authenticity of a deed signed by a notary public shall be presumed to have been established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da35816, Jul. 28, 1992). As stated in the above written confirmation, as the contents of the above written confirmation, the defendant shall be Apr. 205.