1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C loaned a total of KRW 45 million to the Defendant from May 2016 to June 2016.

(hereinafter “instant loan 1”). (b)

From June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to the Defendant, but thereafter, the Plaintiff received a proposal from the Defendant that the sum of KRW 50 million and KRW 1,500,000,000,000 to KRW 1,50,000,000 from the Defendant, and transferred KRW 44,00,000 to the Defendant’s bank account, and separately delivered KRW 6,00,000 in cash to C (hereinafter “instant loan 2”); and KRW 2,00,000,000,000 to KRW 50,000,000,000,000 to KRW 30,00,000,000,000 to KRW 30

C. On June 14, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 95 million from the Plaintiff on June 14, 2016, and would pay the principal by July 5, 2016” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) and a car sales contract stating that “the Plaintiff shall sell the taxi owned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at KRW 95 million.”

On the other hand:

라. 제주지방법원은, 피고가 2016. 6. 14. 21:00경부터 같은 날 22:00경까지 제주시 D(지하)에서 E이 개장한 도박판에서 수회에 걸쳐 윷놀이 도박을 하였다는 범죄사실로, 2017. 7. 3. 피고를 벌금 70만 원에 처한다는 내용의 약식명령을 발령하였다

(Reasons for Recognition), Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 9-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff would receive KRW 95 million in total from the Defendant according to a three-party agreement between the Defendant and C, and that the Plaintiff received the instant loan from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant was the said loan.