1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim of KRW 7 million for loans from the first instance court in 2010, and KRW 100 million for loans from 2006, and the first instance court accepted KRW 7 million for loans in 2010, and dismissed the claim of KRW 100 million for loans in 2006. Since only the Plaintiff appealed, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to KRW 100 million for loans in 2006.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The plaintiff's primary cause of claim, including the plaintiff's primary cause of claim, asserts that the plaintiff, at his own address, lent money to the defendant on November 21, 2006 by transferring the sum of KRW 100 million to the accounts in the name of C, D, E, and F, which the defendant informed on November 21, 2006, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 100 million and its delay damages. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 100 million has invested in the defendant's child C who operated the business in the Philippines, and that the amount of the loan has not been lent to the defendant. 2) According to the statement of the evidence No. 2 (including the number of each item; hereinafter the same shall apply) by the defendant on November 21, 2006.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged based on the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 3 and the entire arguments are as follows: (i) the plaintiff and the defendant have not prepared a disposal document on lending money, such as a loan certificate; (ii) there is no money paid directly to the defendant's account among the KRW 100 million claims that the plaintiff lent to the defendant; and (iii) it cannot be ruled out that the plaintiff could have invested money in the Republic of Korea since it was promoting the business related to housing development and fish farming institutes in the Philippines around 2006.