1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed.

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

The summary of the case is as follows: ① between November 13, 2008 and February 25, 2009, the Plaintiff: ① KRW 95 million in total between November 13, 2008 and February 25, 2009; ② on February 12, 2010, KRW 127.5 million was determined and lent to the Defendant as 3% per each interest month; and ② on May 4, 2010, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 154.5 million from the Defendant; ② the Plaintiff asserted that the said amount was appropriated for the loan; ② the Plaintiff sought the payment of the loan; and the conjunctively, the Plaintiff asserted that the said amount was appropriated for the loan; ② the repayment was appropriated for the loan; and ② the claim for the payment of the loan.

On the premise, the Defendant, on November 13, 2008, made and borrowed to C a promissory note No. 200 million won per face value, and as security, from November 13, 2008 to February 25, 2009, the amount of KRW 95 million per annum (i.e., KRW 130 million on Nov. 13, 2008, KRW 60 million on Feb. 6, 2009, KRW 25 million on Feb. 18, 2009, KRW 30 million on Feb. 25, 2009).

On May 4, 2010, the Defendant repaid KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff.

From July 24, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,500,000 to the Plaintiff for objection suit filed by the Defendant against the said company (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap530820, Seoul Central District Court) and the Defendant’s judgment in favor of all the Defendant (the Plaintiff of this case) excluding the executory power of the said notarial deed was handed down on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation to KRW 95,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff was extinguished in full.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the key claim in the instant case (B) is the Defendant’s request on February 12, 2010, for the following reasons: (a) Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1-2; (b) the existence of a lending fact; (c) the existence of a preliminary claim (B); (d) whether the Plaintiff’s claim was made; (b) the primary claim; and (c) the existence of a lending fact; and (d) the Plaintiff’s demand that the amount to be used for the Defendant’s travel expenses (D) or the installments of BMW vehicle.