1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserted that from December 9, 2004 to March 14, 2007, the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant by means of remitting the sum of KRW 339,600,000 to the defendant's deposit account. The defendant received only KRW 230,500,000 from November 11, 2004 to October 2, 2006. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 91,00,000, which is the difference.

In regard to this, the defendant's deposit passbook under the name of the defendant, which the plaintiff transferred, is a passbook that C used by the defendant, who is the plaintiff's husband, to receive business funds, etc. while running a business with D, which is the plaintiff's husband, and the plaintiff also made a monetary transaction with C through the above passbook with the above passbook with a well-known circumstance. Thus, the

Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that since the defendant guaranteed the above loan obligation, the plaintiff must comply with the plaintiff's claim.

2. In light of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant only with the statement of No. 1.

The plaintiff's above assertion is not acceptable, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant guaranteed the above loan obligation of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.