1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff is a person operating a manufacturing company of mutually manufactured machinery with the trade name “C,” and the Defendant is a person employed by the Plaintiff from September 1, 2001 to September 23, 2015 and working for the said business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 11, 12 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 36,318,498 to the Defendant on condition that the Defendant would be repaid at the time of his retirement, including the Defendant’s national pension, health insurance, and employment insurance, and KRW 36,318,498 by means of paying the Defendant’s insurance premium, such as the Defendant’s national pension, health insurance, and employment insurance, during the period of his/her service. (2) In addition to his/her payment, the Plaintiff lent KRW 13,50,000 as of November 14, 2005 by means of additional cash payment in addition to his/her payment.

3. Determination

A. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 4-9 as to the assertion on the lending of the amount equivalent to the insurance premium, the plaintiff can be found to have paid the insurance premium, such as the defendant's national pension, health insurance, and employment insurance, including the amount of the employee's share from around September 2001 to September 2015.

However, in light of the aforementioned evidence and the existence of loan documents, such as the Plaintiff’s term of office, type of work, level of benefits, existence of a labor contract, loan certificate, etc., it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant borrowed the amount equivalent to the insurance premium from the Plaintiff solely based on the above payment of the insurance premium.

Meanwhile, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 13, the defendant's resignation on September 23, 2015, stating that "the plaintiff paid 48,939,331 won to the worker's share of the National Pension, Industrial Accident Insurance, Health Insurance, and Employment Insurance Insurance premium," as of September 23, 2015, it can be acknowledged that the defendant prepared a written confirmation under the name of the defendant. However, in consideration of the details of the preparation of the above written confirmation recognized by the purport of the entire argument in this case, the defendant's occupation, career, etc. as well as the above circumstances, the defendant recognized the fact