1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 12 as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the fact that the plaintiff remitted the total amount of KRW 51,030,000 to the account in the name of the defendant and the account in the name of C registered as the representative of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the above amount of KRW 51,030,000") as follows.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, remitted the instant KRW 51,030,00 to the Defendant as above.

After that, around March 12, 2015, the Defendant claimed reimbursement of KRW 51,030,000 to the Defendant by content-certified mail, but was not repaid at all.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 51,030,000 and its interest and damages for delay.

B. Considering the following facts acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the contents-certified mail, Gap evidence No. 3's partial descriptions, Eul evidence No. 3's entries, and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff lent KRW 51,030,000 to Eul or Eul, separate from whether the plaintiff lent it to Eul or Eul. The circumstance that KRW 51,030,000 was transferred to the account in the name of the defendant or C is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff lent it to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(A) The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff would lend KRW 51,030,00 to D and E at the time of transfer of KRW 51,030,000 to the Defendant. However, even if the Plaintiff expressed such intention to D and E, it cannot be deemed as an expression of intent to the Defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff lent KRW 51,030,00 to the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

1) D, the Defendant’s father, was a business in Dara. C was registered as a business entity by the Defendant, but in fact, E, the Defendant’s husband, was operated. 2) The Plaintiff is a business relationship with the said D and E.