1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 17 million from the account in the name of “D” to the account in the name of “F,” the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant’s brokerage and borrowed KRW 17 million from the account in the name of “B,” which was requested by the Defendant to request the payment of KRW 30 million, 10% interest per month, and 3 million interest per month after the due date 30 days. In particular, on January 26, 2015, the Plaintiff wired KRW 17 million from the account in the name of “B,” which is the Plaintiff’s wife, to the account in the name of “H,” and then lent KRW 10 million from January 27, 2016 to the account in the name of “B,” which is the Plaintiff’s seat, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remaining principal after appropriating the interest to the leased principal, and damages for delay within the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.

In full view of each statement of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that the account under the name of E was remitted from January 26, 2015 to the account under the name of F, and the fact that the amount of KRW 17 million was remitted from the account under the name of G on January 27, 2015 to the account under the name of H was remitted from January 27, 2015.

Furthermore, according to the health stand and the non-prosecution decision (Evidence A) on whether the above amount was leased to the Defendant, the Defendant stated that he was aware of the fact that he borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff. However, the suspect interrogation protocol (Evidence B No. 8) prepared during the investigation process stated that the Defendant would deposit KRW 15 million out of the amount transferred from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff “D” representative, but the Defendant stated to the effect that he would be the money borrowed by the J (Article 3 and 4), and that he did not receive the loan because he recognized that he borrowed money from the Plaintiff and stated to the effect that he would have repaid the money to the Plaintiff (Article 7). In full view of the fact that the witness C did not lend the above amount to the Defendant, but gave testimony that the Plaintiff lent it to the J.