1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are middle school Dongs.

B. Since 1993, the Plaintiff visited Korea in Japan, and the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, dealt with the property-related affairs in Korea, which is difficult to deal with due to the Plaintiff’s residing in Japan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence Nos. 12 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and determination are as follows, alleging that the Defendant either acquired or embezzled the Plaintiff’s money without any legal ground by means of deceptioning that the Defendant received the Plaintiff’s request from the Plaintiff for the work related to property, and the Plaintiff is liable for damages

paragraphs (1) through (4)

Since each claim is seeking the payment of money as stated in the paragraph, it is necessary to examine the plaintiff's argument by item.

On July 31, 2007, 150,000 UN on the date of exchange Nos. 100,000, the Plaintiff’s claim amount was exchanged into the Republic of Korea after receiving the currency from the Plaintiff, and the full amount was not deposited into the Plaintiff’s account.

On June 24, 2008, 1,155,000 US 5,686,260 on September 22, 2008, 115,225,992 on September 30, 200, 100 UN 1,040,526 on September 30, 2008, but paid in KRW 1 million.

On February 11, 2009, 40,526 5,000,000 UN 7.5 million won deposited in the C account according to the Plaintiff’s instructions, but the remainder was not known.

The plaintiff's assertion 2) ① the 12,907,77881 of total 4,800,000 (12,907,77881) was decided on July 31, 2007 ① there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant exchanged the above money on the above date upon the plaintiff's request from the plaintiff for exchange of 150,000,000, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant exchanged the above money on the above date. Rather, according to the each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 14, the plaintiff was residing in Korea on the above date, and it was recognized that the plaintiff was inquired of the details of the plaintiff's exchange, and therefore, the above 150,000 UN was directly exchanged by the plaintiff, not the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.