1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is C (the death on November 17, 2016)’s wife who was the representative director of the Defendant company at the branch manufacturing company, and on July 25, 2016, C, prior to the Defendant Company, lent the instant money to the Defendant Company by transferring USD 150,000 (the instant money for convenience 16,650,000 per exchange rate per exchange rate per exchange rate per exchange rate per exchange rate per exchange rate per exchange rate per exchange rate per exchange rate (hereinafter “instant money”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 166,650,00 and the delay damages.

2. The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff “loans” the instant money to the Defendant Company.

The plaintiff transferred US$ 150,00 on July 25, 2016 to the account of the defendant company, there is no dispute between the parties.

However, in the event of a transfer of money to another person's deposit account, such transfer may be based on a variety of legal causes. Therefore, the claimant (the plaintiff in this case) must prove that the money transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant is a loan.

In this case, there is no disposition document, such as a loan certificate, which directly proves that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the said money to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 11, the reason why the Plaintiff transferred the instant money to the Defendant is that the Plaintiff’s husband C was the representative director of the Defendant company at the time, and C submitted a report on the liquidation of direct overseas investment business and the collection of loan claims to the D Bank on August 1, 2016, and only it is recognized that the instant money was regarded as the recovery property for overseas investment, and that the Defendant Company’s accounting management was conducted equally.

For this reason,