1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 38,000,000 to the account “name of deposit owner” as listed below does not conflict between the parties.

on July 11, 2008, 12,000,000 C (the mother of the defendant) on July 16, 2008, 200 B 3,000 B 4,000 B 3, 2008 July 2008 4, 200,000 C 4 July 20, 2008 1,000,000 B 5 on July 2008 5, 200 B 38,000,000 D totaling 18,00,000,000 D on September 30, 208

2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 38 million to the Defendant’s account designated by the Defendant, as shown in the above table, to the Defendant. At the time, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 50 million including interest after three months.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay to the plaintiff 38 million won and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act from October 1, 2008 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the last loan receipt.

The defendant asserts that the amount remitted by the plaintiff is not a loan to the defendant, but an investment for the development project within the F zone in which D is the representative director E, a corporation with D as the representative director, and that the defendant has no obligation to repay it.

B. As seen earlier, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff remitted the total amount of KRW 38 million.

However, on the other hand, the statement No. 13 and the fact-finding with the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service of this court, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the whole purport of the pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff submitted to the Financial Supervisory Service on August 15, 201, a petition stating that “the Plaintiff was 38 million won after hearing talks about the investment business conducted by the Defendant in Mongolia, and invested by the Defendant, but failed to be returned.” On June 18, 2009, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff received part of the investment amount in relation to the investment made by the Chinese F U.S., and transferred its investment shares to the extent of the amount received by B in relation to this investment.