1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 165,035,60 to the Defendant’s account from November 15, 2010 to November 23, 2015.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on November 15, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 165,035,600 to the Defendant from November 23, 2015; and (b) on July 1, 2016, the Defendant’s mother settled the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 70,000,000, the due date for payment, and the due date for payment on December 31, 2018; and (b) filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 70,00,000 and its delay damages; and (c) on this, the Defendant asserted that D received the money by means of the Defendant’s account, and that it did not have borrowed money from the Defendant.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the plaintiff.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of lending to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, D is merely a fact that the Plaintiff operated the system by using the Defendant’s account, the Plaintiff transferred money with the indication of “paid money” when remitting money to the Defendant’s account, and the Plaintiff received a loan certificate from D on July 1, 2016 and did not receive any loan certificate or any documents related to the joint and several guarantee from the Defendant as well as the time at which it was issued, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligor is merely a non-defendant.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.