1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff’s Dong Jae-in’s account, which is the Plaintiff’s Dong Jae-in. On March 3, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 70 million from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account on March 3, 2009.

B. C, on August 28, 2012, at the Jeonju District Court No. 2010, 2595, and 2010Hadan2595, was decided to grant immunity. The status of insolvency is at the time of the closing of the instant argument.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap's 1, 2, 3, and 3, testimony of witness C and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On March 3, 2009, the primary plaintiff lent 70 million won to the defendant without an agreement on interest and due date. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above 70 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. Preliminary assertion, even if the Plaintiff did not lend KRW 70 million to the Defendant as above, the Plaintiff lent KRW 70 million to C on March 2, 2009, and C lent KRW 70 million to the Defendant on March 3, 2009. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 70 million and the delay damages thereof, which are exercised by subrogation of the Defendant’s loan claims against the Defendant in insolvency.

3. Determination

A. The facts that KRW 70 million was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to C’s account in determining the primary assertion, and that KRW 70 million was remitted from C’s account to the Defendant’s account on the following day are acknowledged as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances revealed by the facts without dispute and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a loan certificate regarding the loan of KRW 70 million between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; ② the Plaintiff failed to urge the Defendant to repay the above KRW 70 million from March 2009 when it was transferred to the time of the instant lawsuit to the time of the instant lawsuit; ③ The amount transferred to C by the Plaintiff cannot be ruled out by the possibility of having been subject to the transaction relationship between the Plaintiff and C. In full view of the above, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is sufficient.