1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion that around March 2010, the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 110 million to the defendant through the introduction of the loan service provider C, which is the loan service provider, and the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 110 million to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. As evidence that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant, the Plaintiff cited a monetary lending contract (Evidence 1) (Evidence 1), bank transaction details (including evidence No. 3, number No. 4, and number No. 6; hereinafter the same) (Evidence 4 and 6 of the A), and testimony No. 4 and D as evidence.

On the other hand, the document document No. 1, which corresponds to the disposal document, is the document possessed by the defendant, not the plaintiff. However, since the plaintiff voluntarily submitted the lending column of the copy of the above monetary lending contract in which the borrower is a blank, it cannot be used as evidence (the plaintiff was charged with forgery of private documents, etc. that forged the above monetary lending contract, and thus, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion of the lending contract as to the plaintiff's assertion of the lending contract, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. Rather, according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 through 6, Nos. 1 and 2, and the overall purport of testimony and arguments by witnesses D, and C, the credit service provider, made investments in the Defendant Company. On March 2010, the Defendant requested C to lend the Company’s operating funds to C, and prepared a monetary lending contract of KRW 110 million with the borrower’s disturbance. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and D operated a brokerage office of F Real Estate located in Incheon as well, but C borrowed money from the Plaintiff via D to borrow money.