1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant stated in the separate sheet does not exist.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a person who has worked as the Defendant’s intra-company director. 2) The Plaintiff paid the Defendant’s debt incurred in the course of implementing the Seongdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City New Construction Project, the Sungnam Special Metropolitan City D New Construction Project, etc. with the Defendant’s personal funds first, and then paid the corresponding amount from the Defendant. However, in the accounting account, the Plaintiff appropriated the corresponding amount as borrowing from the Defendant.

3) As above, on February 1, 201, the Plaintiff paid 50,000,000 won for the insurance and mutual aid fee to be paid by the Defendant to the credit union as the Plaintiff’s funds. On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiff paid 20,000,000 won for the Defendant’s settlement of accounts in 201 to the tax accountant E as the Plaintiff’s funds, and then appropriated the Defendant’s each disbursement from the Defendant and the Plaintiff was compensated and appropriated for the account as the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant (attached Table 44,70, No. 44,70, Mar. 3, 201). The details appropriated as the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant as the Defendant’s borrowed money in the above manner are as shown in the attached list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 146, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts of recognition, the obligations listed in the attached list are merely indicated as loans to the plaintiff for the settlement of accounts of the defendant, and the obligation does not actually exist.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.