1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C is a company mainly engaged in construction business. The Defendant was the representative director of the said company from October 9, 2012 to April 17, 2013, and was involved in the said company’s construction business even after the appointment of the representative director. The “D” is a person who has participated in the said company’s construction business in the form of employees of the said company.

B. On June 4, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the introduction of D, contracted the construction of a new multi-household on the ground E in Suwon-si Co., Ltd. for KRW 300,000,000.

C. On June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 60,000 to the Defendant.

D On January 18, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a “written confirmation of completion of construction,” which contains the content that the said construction will be completed by January 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 2, Eul's 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, on June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant by remitting KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to return the said loan to the Plaintiff.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 60,000 to the Defendant. However, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to the Defendant by taking account of the aforementioned evidence, witness D’s testimony, and witness F’s testimony, i.e., the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to the Defendant is the date after the conclusion of the above construction contract. The Plaintiff introduced the construction contract and transferred the said money upon the repeated request made by D actually participating in the construction contract, and failed to directly confirm the Defendant’s intent in connection therewith (no evidence exists to deem that there was a right of representation to borrow money on behalf of the Defendant to D), and ② The said money that the Defendant transferred to the Defendant was used as funds necessary for the above construction.