1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, on July 9, 2003, remitted the total sum of KRW 60 million on August 29, 2003 and KRW 30 million on August 29, 2003 to the bank account (Account Number C) in the name of the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) If the Defendant lent KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff on July 2003, the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million within six months or 308.63 square meters of Etel 15 stories in Guri-si (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

(2) Since the Defendant agreed to sell the instant officetel in lots to the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 60 million and the delay damages therefor. (2) At the option, the Defendant, in collusion with F, the representative of the claim group of the said officetel at the time, lent KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff within six months from July 2003, or deceiving the Plaintiff as if he would have had the instant officetel sold, thereby inducing the Plaintiff to purchase the instant officetel. As such, the Defendant acquired the instant officetel by transfer from the Plaintiff to the account in the name of the Defendant for the sales contract of the said officetel, and thus, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 60 million and the delay damages therefrom as compensation for the tort.

B. The Defendant’s KRW 60 million transferred from the Plaintiff was the down payment under the sale and supply contract for the instant officetel concluded with F. The Plaintiff asked the Defendant to transfer the said money to F. The Plaintiff received the money from the Plaintiff and paid the F.

3. The fact that the plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 60 million on July 9, 2003 and KRW 60 million on August 29, 2003 to the bank account in the name of the defendant to the bank account in the name of the defendant is as above.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the description of Eul evidence 3 and the testimony of witness F, namely, the Defendant remitted part of the transferred money from the Plaintiff to F, and even if there is any money not remitted to F, this is between F and the Defendant.