1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts recognized;

A. The status and relationship between the parties concerned 1) E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”)

A) A company established on June 25, 2009 and engaged in hydrotensions and gold-gu wholesale business, etc. as its intended business, and was dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act on December 2, 2019. (2) The Defendant F was registered as its representative director from the time when E is established to April 9, 2013, and Nonparty G (H) as the Defendant’s spouse and was registered as its representative director from April 9, 2013 to the time when E is dissolved.

3) On January 2, 2007, the Plaintiff (IS) and Nonparty J (K) are legally married couples who completed the marriage report. B. (1) On November 14, 2012, the amount of a check worth KRW 200 million was deposited with an enterprise bank account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant check”). The account holder is the J, the spouse of the Plaintiff.

2) Meanwhile, at the time of deposit of the check money, the cash loan certificate (No. 1; hereinafter “the first loan certificate of this case”) in the name of the Plaintiff and E as shown in attached Form 1 is as follows.

(3) On May 20, 2014, G, the Defendant’s spouse, prepared a loan certificate with the same content as the attached Form 2 (hereinafter “instant second loan certificate”) and issued it to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows, asserting that the Plaintiff sought a judgment as to the purport of the claim.

The check of this case was deposited as part of lending KRW 200 million to the defendant individual, and the depositor is J but actually lent the money.