1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On March 11, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that on June 11, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 70 million to the Defendant as the due date for reimbursement on June 11, 2010, and that the Defendant repaid KRW 40 million out of that on June 11, 2011, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remainder of the loan to the Defendant.

According to the evidence No. 1, No. 1-2, and No. 3, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she remitted the total amount of KRW 70 million to the deposit account in the Defendant’s name on March 11, 2010.

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4 and the witness Eul's testimony, the plaintiff transferred the above KRW 70 million at the request of C, who is a workplace partner, and C, on June 1, 2011, paid the plaintiff KRW 40 million out of the above KRW 70 million, and at the time of transfer of KRW 70 million, the plaintiff and the defendant did not know each other and they did not know about it.

In light of the above developments leading up to the transfer of KRW 70 million and the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 70 million to the Defendant solely based on the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the money to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. On March 11, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant received KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, thereby gaining pecuniary profits equivalent to the said amount, and that the Plaintiff suffered pecuniary losses therefrom, and sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 30 million against the Defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiff remitted the above KRW 70 million to the plaintiff's deposit account at the defendant's father C's request, and the fact that C repaid the above KRW 40 million among them is as seen above. In light of the above facts of recognition, it is difficult to view that the defendant received the above KRW 30 million without any legal cause, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.