1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On October 2013, the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 110,000,000 and delay damages, on the ground that (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant were found together and registered as a business operator in the name of the Defendant, and (b) the Plaintiff lent KRW 110,000 to C and the Defendant for the import business of fishery products as a trade; and (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant leased KRW 110,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The fact that the defendant was registered as a representative of the E company engaging in the import business of fishery products is recognized according to the fact-finding results of this court's customs service corporation D.

C. However, in full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, the above facts of recognition and the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to deem that the other party who lent money to the plaintiff, or that the defendant is jointly and severally liable with Eul for the repayment of the money that the plaintiff lent to the E company as business funds of the E company due to the operation of the E company with C and the Dong business, and

① Although the Defendant was registered as the representative of the E company, it seems that the Defendant was operating the E company in fact by the request of C in a de facto marital relationship at the time.

In addition, since August 2013, the defendant has been employed as a day from the frequency to the present, it seems that he did not participate in the operation of the E company.

② The other party who actually remitted money or delivered cash was C, and there was no such fact to the Defendant.

③ The Plaintiff transferred money to C from October 2013, and even based on the Plaintiff’s statement, the Plaintiff’s contact with the Defendant is not around October 2013 but around April 2014, rather than around October 2013.

In addition, the defendant at the time when the plaintiff met the defendant on April 2014.