1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Since the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lent KRW 54,00,000 to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff deposited KRW 54,00,000 in five times from September 29, 2009 to June 26, 2015 to the defendant's account.

However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the respective descriptions and the entire purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff solely on the basis of the facts and circumstances, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

① The Defendant and C were married on January 22, 1987 and divorced on June 19, 2017.

② The Defendant asserted that C, the former wife of the Defendant, borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and only used the account in the name of the Defendant in the process of borrowing money, and that C also borrowed money from the Plaintiff as a business necessity of the Plaintiff and paid the money directly.

③ The time when the Plaintiff deposited money in the account under the name of the Defendant cannot be ruled out, as the time when the Defendant and C were in a marital relationship with the Defendant, that C was actually in a practical management of the Defendant’s account.

④ The Plaintiff did not submit any material supporting the Defendant’s actual borrower, despite the Defendant’s dispute over the circumstances of borrowing.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserted that it did not have any direct transaction with C, but there exists a details of deposit and withdrawal in the account under C’s name.

6. Meanwhile, from the account under the name of C and the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, it appears that the amount was already transferred.

2. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.