1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the purport of the claim to the defendant, because he/she entered into an interest agreement of 2% per month in total with the defendant, and lends the amount to the defendant. The defendant asserts that he/she received the amount of investment.

2. A person who receives an amount of fact-finding [A evidence 1, B 1-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings] shall be the person who receives the amount of fact-finding (the evidence No. 1, B 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings] B, 10 million won on September 19, 2014, and 2 million won on October 15, 2014, the Plaintiff, as set forth below, has remitted to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

According to the minutes of the general meeting of promoters on September 30, 2014, the company at issue, the plaintiff, and the defendant attended the meeting as promoters, and the defendant was appointed as representative director and the plaintiff as auditor.

On the same day, the plaintiff acquired a total amount of two million won as a promoter.

3. As to the assertion that the plaintiff lent five million won to the defendant, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge it in light of the following facts acknowledged by each evidence, etc. submitted to the court, and there is no other evidence.

① It is insufficient to recognize that there was no document, such as a loan certificate, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that there was a specific interest agreement, only that the Defendant paid some amount of money.

② Among five million won claimed, four million won is not received by the defendant himself/herself, and the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd is the recipient.

③ The Plaintiff’s assertion itself also lends five million won to the Plaintiff, and there is no assertion about the agreement on the period of reimbursement, and there is no assertion that the period of reimbursement has not been determined.

④ As alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s wife was present as the promoters of the LAC, and the Plaintiff also was appointed as the auditor of the LAC. Thus, it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the Plaintiff’s payment to the Defendant was made as a whole as the fund for the establishment and operation of the LAC. If the Plaintiff’s assertion is merely a part of the Plaintiff’s participation in the form, the loan certificate