1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of November 6, 2009, C, the representative director of the Plaintiff, as of November 6, 2009, drafted to the Defendant a certificate of borrowing under the Plaintiff’s name that “A, from the Defendant, borrowed KRW 100,000,000 monthly interest rate of 0.5% and due date of payment on December 30, 2010.”

B. After that, C has re-written to the Defendant a certificate of borrowing the Plaintiff’s name that monthly interest of KRW 100,000 shall be KRW 0.7%, and on November 6, 2009, and on December 30, 2011, C borrowed on December 30, 201.

C. On December 15, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 106,60,000 to the Defendant’s account on August 22, 2011, KRW 22,400,000,000, and KRW 106,00,000 on March 7, 2012, and KRW 18,000 on May 2, 2012, and KRW 2,000,00 on May 30, 2012, to each Defendant’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Defendant did not lend money to the Plaintiff, the Defendant received KRW 106,600,000 from the Plaintiff for the repayment of the loan, the said money constitutes unjust enrichment, and thus, the Defendant is entitled to seek the return of the said money to the Defendant.

3. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant lent KRW 100,000,00 to the plaintiff on November 6, 2009 as stated in each of the above loan certificates (the above loan certificates show that the loan certificate was made up two times on November 6, 2009 for KRW 100,000,000 that the defendant lent to the plaintiff on November 6, 2009). Thus, the defendant's 106,60,000 that the defendant received from the plaintiff after it is determined to be the amount that he received the principal and interest of the above loan.

As to this, the plaintiff's each of the above loan certificates was merely the head of the plaintiff's loan certificate at the time, and the father D was the actual representative of the plaintiff, and the defendant's father D prepared each of the above loan certificates in collusion. At the time, the defendant did not have the ability to lend KRW 100,000 to the plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize

Rather, the evidence Nos. 5 and 7 are written.