1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to a deposit account (Account Number) in the Defendant’s name on June 10, 2014 does not conflict between the parties, or that it is recognized by the statement in Eul evidence 1.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 30 million to the defendant (the main assertion), and even if not, the defendant makes unjust enrichment of the above KRW 30 million without any legal ground (the preliminary assertion). Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the claim to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant, where the Plaintiff transferred the above KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, was used as the above D by lending the said money to the Defendant that was close to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant did not borrow or use the said money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

3. In full view of the respective statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 9, and 11, the following facts are as follows: ① The deposit account in the defendant’s name that the plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to Eul was used by the defendant; ② the plaintiff, upon D’s request, remitted KRW 30 million to the above deposit account in the defendant’s name that D used; ③ the above money was used in all; ③ the plaintiff invested KRW 70 million to the defendant separately from the above KRW 30 million; but the above amount was remitted to another deposit account in the defendant’s name; ④ The defendant returned all of the above amount of KRW 70 million to the plaintiff; ④ The plaintiff and D returned to the defendant for any reason other than the above amount of KRW 70 million to the defendant.

In light of the above facts, the fact that the plaintiff remitted 30 million won to the deposit account in the name of the defendant and the statement in Gap evidence 1 through 8 are alone.