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

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

1. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to the Defendant, who was an employee of the studio harassment in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on May 6, 2013, and that the Defendant subrogated the amount of KRW 24 million to the above studio harassment as the Defendant’s superior on January 2014, the Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 39 million and delay damages.

Regarding this, the defendant asserts that the above 15 million won was repaid by the defendant, who is an employee, the plaintiff, as the head of the studal harassment team, three prepaid loans (one pre-paid “masting”) managed by him/her, by having the defendant, who is the employee, pay the total of 15 million won first, and around January 2014, the defendant did not work in the above studal harassment.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was the team leader of the studal harassment in the middle-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “D” in the name of the head of the studal harassment in order to manage a contact loan. From around June 2009 to June 2013, the Defendant performed the work, such as collecting alcohol and service fees from the Plaintiff’s studal harassment staff and remitting them to the Plaintiff.

B. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s bank account.

C. On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office that the Defendant lent KRW 63 million from September 22, 2015 to October 2010, but the Defendant was subject to a decision that the Defendant was suspected of being guilty.

In the above criminal complaint case of the plaintiff, the above part of 15 million won and the part of 24 million won were not included.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant: (a) worked at the inventory management team of the clothing company “F” operated by pro-friendly job offering E from November 2013 to August 2016, 2016, and (b) is engaged in clothing-related business in Vietnam.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 12, 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Although there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff remitted 15 million won to the Defendant’s bank account on May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff did not have agreed on the due date or interest.