1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff amounted to KRW 50 million to the Defendant on December 30, 201; (b) KRW 20 million on January 10, 201; (c) KRW 20 million on January 17, 201; and (d) KRW 10 million on February 15, 201 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

(2) Since each loan was leased, the Defendant claimed for the payment of KRW 100 million and the damages for delay thereof. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant is the representative director (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) awarded a contract to the Plaintiff for the construction work of 39 holes Construction Work (hereinafter “instant construction work”), around May 11, 2010, after the Defendant paid KRW 380 million to the Plaintiff at a construction contract around August 20, 2010, the Plaintiff did not perform the said construction work and the Nonparty Company terminated the said contract on or around August 3, 2011, and the Plaintiff is in the status of the obligor who was obligated to return KRW 32731 million out of the construction contract amount already paid to the Nonparty Company [in relation to this case, the Plaintiff’s repayment of the construction price was made to Nonparty 284,200,000,0000,0000 won to Nonparty 320,000,000 won (hereinafter “the instant construction work price”).

B. Therefore, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is a loan, even though there is no dispute between the parties regarding whether the instant money was a loan, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff paid the instant money to the Defendant on each day. Meanwhile, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire argument in the statement No. 1 (including each number), the evidence presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant money was a