1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff served in the Defendant Company from around 2011 to February 2016.

B. The former representative director C of the Defendant Company transferred the shares of the Defendant Company to D around November 30, 2016, and D was appointed as the inside director who is the representative of the Defendant Company on December 1, 2016 and completed registration of modification on December 19, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 5 to 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the assertion was that the former representative director C of the Defendant Company temporarily lent KRW 114,270,000 to the Defendant Company through the account of the Defendant Company, not the Defendant Company’s account, to maintain the real capital. In order to maintain the real capital of the Defendant Company, the sum of KRW 114,270,000 from December 3, 2013 to November 21, 2016 was leased to the Defendant Company.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan 114,270,000 won and damages for delay.

B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that between December 3, 2013 and November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 285,120,000 from the one’s E bank account (Account Number H) to the one’s G bank account in the name of C, and that the Plaintiff received KRW 170,850,00 from the above account; and C remitted a considerable portion of the money remitted from the Plaintiff to the one’s I Bank account in the name of C, and that part of the money was remitted to the Defendant Company account.

Furthermore, in light of the following opposing facts and circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the party who entered into a loan contract for consumption with the Plaintiff as the Defendant is not C but the Defendant Company, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, the plaintiff added the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 6 (including each number).