1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. If a loan of money was made for the purpose of providing it to the gambling funds for which a request for the return of the loan was made, the loan contract is invalid as a juristic act contrary to social order Article 103 of the Civil Act.

(Supreme Court Decision 72Da2249 Decided May 22, 1973). The Plaintiff received a request from C to lend money to the persons who are going in gambling and gambling and to lend money to them for the business of removing interest; the Plaintiff asked that C be unaware of trust; the Plaintiff would lend money to another person as the borrower; the Defendant, upon the request from C after C, prepared a loan certificate and remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant on November 7, 2014; and the Defendant delivered the above KRW 100 million to C may be recognized by the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 10 and the testimony of the witness.

Therefore, since a monetary loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void because it constitutes a anti-social order, the plaintiff's claim seeking the return of the loan cannot be accepted.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant conspired with C to receive money by deceiving the plaintiff, the illegality of the defendant is significantly larger than that of the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to return 100 million won to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment pursuant to the proviso of Article 746 of the Civil Code.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant deceivings the plaintiff, so this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff according to the new agreement, as the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff money on several occasions, including February 15, 2015, March 4, 2015, and May 30, 2016.

However, even if the Defendant agreed to return the loan between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is invalid in violation of social order, and therefore, it is in accordance with Article 746 of the Civil Code.