1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff in order to obtain a successful bid for the factory C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and sought the return thereof.

The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million from Nonparty D to receive the successful bid for C factory, and paid it to the Defendant on March 30, 2009. On the same day, the Defendant did not dispute between the parties, but used the above KRW 100 million as the successful bid deposit in the name of limited liability company E (former District CourtF and G). On the other hand, each of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged based on Gap evidence No. 5 and Eul evidence No. 1, as a result of the dispatch of documents by the former District Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the purport of all pleadings, are as follows: (i) the Plaintiff was a former operator of C and was seeking to operate the C factory again, but it was difficult for the Plaintiff to receive the successful bid price under one’s name as at the time of the auction process, but it was difficult for the Plaintiff to receive the successful bid price of the C factory and request the Defendant to award the remainder of the bid price of KRW 100 million upon receiving the successful bid deposit from Nonparty H, and (ii) the Plaintiff made a statement to the Defendant to the Defendant to pay the remainder 1000 billion.