1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) On March 8, 2019, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff will borrow KRW 70 million and repay the loan by March 29, 2019 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

(2) The actual loan amount based on the loan certificate of this case is KRW 60 million (the 10 million out of the borrowed loan amount is the interest in advance) actual employer C. The Defendant prepared the loan certificate of this case upon C’s request with the Plaintiff, which was related to the money transaction with C.

B. (1) On April 24, 2019, D’s children in de facto marital relations with C entered into a contract for the lease of housing owned by the Plaintiff, and deposited KRW 80 million as security deposit to the Plaintiff.

(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and C agreed to mutually appropriate and extinguish the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of deposit amounting to KRW 80 million against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant loan against the Defendant. Accordingly, C issued to the Plaintiff a letter of waiver of the right to claim the return of deposit under the name of E on July 2019, and a written confirmation around October 2019 that C received the return of the deposit and the deposit. The Plaintiff returned the original copy of the instant loan to C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant did not pay the loan based on the loan certificate of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 70 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff. However, it is based on the facts acknowledged earlier, and the loan based on the loan certificate of this case was fully repaid. Thus, the plaintiff's argument is without merit without further review.

The Plaintiff did not agree with C and E as mutually appropriating the claim for the instant loan certificate and the claim for the refund of deposit, and rather C merely said C as the claim for the refund of deposit amount of E and thus, C’s obligation to the Plaintiff is preferentially appropriated.