1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who runs the wholesale and retail business of electronic parts under the name of C, was in a trade relationship with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant is the E- which was the representative director of D.

B. On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 33,400,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the account under the name of the Defendant upon the E’s request.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the Defendant remitted the instant money to the Defendant’s account, the Defendant is obligated to return it as the borrower, and even if E is not the Defendant’s lender, the Defendant, also is responsible for returning it. 2) As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that E, who operated D, borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff with D operating funds, and that it was transferred by using the account under the name of the Defendant, on the grounds that there was no account being transferred by provisional seizure, etc.

B. As to whether the Defendant borrowed the instant money from a lender or not, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the instant money to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant is identical to the foregoing. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize the Defendant as the borrower, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, in light of the circumstances acknowledged as the whole purport of the evidence argument adopted earlier, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff received the payment for the goods of D from E, (ii) received the payment for D’s loan, and subsequently remitted the instant money upon the E’s request, (iii) E had the cash transaction related to D with provisional attachment of D and its account into the Defendant’s name, and (iv) there were no circumstances to deem that the Defendant participated in the transfer process and use of the instant money, the borrower borrowed the instant money.