1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, the cause of the claim, became aware of the Defendant C’s pro-Japanese arrest through the wife C.

The Defendant, around November 30, 2006, lent KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant on the same day on the ground that “The husband had to put in the fraternity, but the husband did not receive monthly payment.” The Plaintiff lent KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant on the same day.

(Attachment No. 1). While working for the company, the Plaintiff received 15 million won of the compensation by cutting the fingers while receiving the compensation. The Defendant provided that “I would purchase the truck and repay the money with the purchase of the truck.” On February 13, 2009, the Plaintiff lent 15 million won of the check, which was withdrawn from its account, to the Defendant as 15 copies of the check.

(Attachment No. 2) Even after the Defendant requested the Defendant to lend money for various reasons, the Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 25 million to the Defendant as shown in Attached No. 3 through 14, as shown in Attached Table No. 14.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 25 million won and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, each of the plaintiff's arguments can be acknowledged as having withdrawn cash in the same amount as that set forth in the table Nos. 1, 3, and 14 from the plaintiff's account at the time of each plaintiff's assertion. However, unless there is any evidence to prove that the money was a loan, the claim for this part is without merit.

The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 13 million to the Defendant on the date indicated in No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2 that the Plaintiff paid KRW 13 million to the Defendant is not a dispute between the parties.

(On the other hand, the part exceeding two million won is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the money was dyped to the defendant only with the entries of Gap Nos. 2 and 6 and the results of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to the Nonghyup Bank, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise). However, solely on such facts, the above money is against the plaintiff's defendant.