1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Where there is no dispute between the parties to the basic facts or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the defendant prepared a notarial deed on March 11, 2009 with C (hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed in this case") and the defendant borrowed KRW 70 million from C on January 9, 2009 and made installment payments of KRW 10 million on the last day of every month from June 2009 to December 12, 209. The damages for delay agreed 30% per annum, and C transferred the above claims against the defendant on August 1, 201 to the plaintiff on August 1, 2014, and the plaintiff notified the defendant of the assignment of claims on the same day.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff acquired the claim against the Defendant by transfer, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70 million and damages for delay after the due date.

B. Defendant 1) around December 2008, the Defendant lost all the money held in the Mara Game at a casino in Maka, thereby leaving D passport to D and lending 300,000 Hong Kong. D was the Defendant’s private casino, and the Defendant went to the Defendant, and the Defendant lost all of the said casino games. After 10 days, the Plaintiff’s representative director E was the Defendant to pay the money he was the owner of the said money, and the Defendant was unable to return the passport to F with the Defendant’s arbitration around February 2009. Since E was accompanied with C around March 2009, demanded the Defendant to make a notarial deed and demanded the Defendant to return money from the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s money constitutes illegal cause.

3 The defendant actually used the casino chips equivalent to USD 125,000 from D, and thus the amount borrowed by the defendant is equivalent to KRW 20,000,000, and the amount borrowed by the defendant is equivalent to KRW 20,000,00.