1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. On June 1, 2011, Defendant B drafted a monetary loan agreement (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Plaintiff on the following content, and around that time, the fact that Defendant B received KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant money”) does not conflict between the parties, or that it is recognized by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to the statement in Evidence A 1.

Article 1 [Loan] The Plaintiff lent KRW 150 million (150,000,000) to the Defendant B on June 1, 2011, and Defendant B borrowed this.

Article 2 [Period and Date of Repayment]

1. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, Defendant B shall immediately repay the principal loan.

2. The repayment date shall be two years from the date of borrowing.

However, when there is no request for repayment by the plaintiff, it shall be automatically extended for two years.

Article 3 [Interest]

1.The interest shall be twenty percent per annum.

2. Payment of interest shall be made to the account designated by the Plaintiff on or before the fifth (date of time fixed) of each month.

Article 4 (Loss of Benefit of Time) In the following cases, the benefit of time shall be naturally forfeited without a peremptory notice, and all remaining obligations shall be paid immediately:

3. Within 30 days when the plaintiff requests the return.

4. When the payment of interest is delayed continuously on two consecutive occasions or more from the time when the interest is to be paid.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 entered into an agreement under the loan agreement of this case with the Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff loaned the Defendants the amount of KRW 150 million.

Even if Defendant C did not directly conclude a loan for consumption as to the instant money with the Plaintiff, even if Defendant C, the husband of Defendant C, based on the ordinary household power under Article 827(1) of the Civil Act, concluded the above loan for consumption with the Plaintiff by proxy, or ② Defendant B did not have the authority to conclude the said loan for consumption on behalf of the Defendant C.