1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 21, 2016, the Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, lent KRW 50,000 to the Defendant with the maturity of two months after the lapse of two months, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to repay this.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant's account on February 21, 2016 and February 22, 2016. Furthermore, even if this money is a loan, the plaintiff must prove that it is a loan.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant, on December 21, 2015, acknowledged that he remitted KRW 50,000 to the plaintiff on December 21, 2015, and the defendant asserted that "the amount loaned to the plaintiff and was returned KRW 50,00,000 as above on February 2, 2016," while the plaintiff asserted that "the amount transferred to the plaintiff and the defendant as a partner while engaging in the business of a company "C" of the plaintiff and the defendant, separate from the loan of this case."

On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 50,000,00 from the Defendant as one’s own personal account, and transferred KRW 100,000,000,000, plus KRW 50,000,00 from the Plaintiff’s personal account to C’s account on the same day (Evidence A4). ① The Defendant transferred KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s personal account without directly remitting it to the said company’s account; ② the Defendant transferred KRW 50,00,000, which was remitted to the Defendant in February 2, 2016, not to the Plaintiff’s account but to C’s account (Evidence A8). Considering the fact that the Plaintiff asserted that the money was leased to the Plaintiff’s own account, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant transferred KRW 50,500,000,00,00 to the Plaintiff’s personal account based on the nature of the loan was not recognized.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.