1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. On December 6, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 60,000,000 to a financial account under the name of E Co., Ltd.

At the time of transfer, F was registered as the representative director of E Co., Ltd.

B. The Selection C remitted KRW 50,000,000 on February 17, 2012 to the financial account in the name of the Defendant (former trade name: G Co., Ltd.).

At the time of the above transfer, F was registered as the defendant's auditor, and H was registered as his representative.

C. The Selected remitted KRW 70,000,000 to the I’s financial account on May 2, 2011, as follows (Evidence A 3).

Receipts: Liber million won (70,000,000) the above amount shall be the occupancy deposit out of the proceeds of the entrusted possession by the J of both levels.

B. On May 2, 2011, 201: (a) the representative director G (State) / the 【based ground for recognition”; (b) there exists no dispute; (c) evidence Nos. 1 through 5; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff and the Appointors requested the Defendant’s audit and the actual representative director to lend money to the Defendant by means of remitting money to the financial account in the name of E Co., Ltd. designated by F, Defendant’s name, financial account in the name of the Defendant, and financial account in I.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above borrowed money to the plaintiff and the selected parties.

B. The fact that F was registered as the Defendant’s auditor at the time of each transfer by the Plaintiff and the Appointeds may be recognized by the statement in the certificate No. 2 as seen earlier, but such fact alone is difficult to deem that F had the authority to borrow money, such as operating funds, from the Plaintiff and the Appointeds on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

On the other hand, in the case of Selection, the fact that he remitted 50,000,000 won to the financial account under the name of the defendant was stated above, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the above remittance was a loan to the defendant.