1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff has a claim against the Defendant by lending funds as indicated in the following table as the cause of the instant claim.

No. 80,000,000 won on March 1, 2017, Defendant A’s account transfer of KRW 82,000,000 in total to Defendant A’s account on April 4, 2017, 2017, No. 82,00,000,000.

B. 1) First of all, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the loan as of March 1, 2017 among the facts constituting the Plaintiff’s claim, the evidence No. 1, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the loan (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

(C) On March 1, 2017, following the Defendant’s guarantee, C borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the original portion of the certificate of rent”).

2) The part of the “Additional Value of KRW 50,000,000 (50,000)” (hereinafter referred to as “the part out of the tea card”) to add the borrowed amount and the borrowed amount.

A) The Defendant is composed of two parts. However, while recognizing the authenticity of the original portion among the loan certificates, the Defendant denies the authenticity of the original portion out of the loan certificates, and even from the land to the land, it seems that the original portion out of the loan certificates differs from the original portion out of the loan certificates. In addition, in the result of appraiser D’s written appraisal, it is difficult to find out whether the original portion out of the loan certificates differs from the Plaintiff’s pen and whether it is identical with the Plaintiff’s pen book, which is the primary debtor. Therefore, the portion out of the loan certificates in this case cannot be used as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the loan, and as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan as of April 4, 2017 among the facts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan as of April 4, 2017, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 200,000 to the Defendant’s deposit account on April 4, 2017.

However, if there is no disposal document, such as a certificate of borrowing, and the other party denies the fact of borrowing, it is not immediately determined that the nature of the fund is a loan.