1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion representative director D is a person who actually operates the Defendant Company. Since the said D loaned the Defendant’s operating capital to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 135 million to the Defendant two times in total, including KRW 85 million around 201 and KRW 15 million on July 16, 2012, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 135 million and delay damages.

2. The Defendant’s seal also stated that the following stamp image of the Defendant’s representative director’s name, which is indicated as “a studio in the Defendant Company’s office” (the four pages of Defendant’s preparatory document dated July 17, 2015), is the Defendant’s employee seal impression: (a) the Defendant’s seal is indicated as “a studio in the Defendant Company’s office.”

Although there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant's representative director's seal is affixed by the defendant's representative director's name next to the defendant's representative director's name under each of the above monetary loan contract, there is no dispute between the parties. The entries of subparagraphs 2 through 7 above are insufficient to recognize the fact that D has the right to affix the defendant's seal to the defendant's person operating the defendant's company, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the above evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 cannot be used as evidence, and there is no other evidence to support that the plaintiff lent KRW 135 million to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.