1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million, totaling KRW 30 million on June 30, 2013, and KRW 20 million on July 1, 2013, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of Defendant B.

B. On July 1, 2013, Defendant C drafted a loan certificate stating that “I, in the course of the auction on July 1, 2013, E located in Seocheon-gun D, borrowed from the Plaintiff Y million won ( Y50,000,000) in order to obtain the auction, I promise to return this article immediately in the event I did not receive the successful bid” (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”).

C. Around July 1, 2013, Defendant C was awarded a highest price on July 1, 2013 in the name of Defendant C, a real estate auction case, E, but a decision was rendered on July 8, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, on the claim against Defendant B, Defendant C is obligated to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff jointly with the Defendant C, because the transfer of money to Defendant B when the request for a loan was made by Defendant C, that Defendant B is the borrower.

The plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 50 million to the defendant Eul's account as seen earlier. However, in light of the plaintiff's remittance circumstance or the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul as seen below, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the defendant Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive loan of Defendant B’s deposit passbook to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C claimed compensation for damages on the part of this part. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned that there was a decision not to allow the sale of the goods at the auction of this case, and the defendant C did so.