1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 13, 2010, the Defendant drafted a cash storage certificate stating that “The sum of KRW 10,600,000,000 per month’s maturitys, and KRW 21,30,000,00,000,00 per month’s maturitys for February, shall be kept in cash (or by means of settlement).”

B. On May 14, 2010, the Defendant drafted a cash custody certificate stating that “The cash custody certificate of KRW 11,900,000 for the extended credit amount of KRW 11,90,000 was prepared, and on June 10, 2010, the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate stating that “the cash custody certificate of KRW 55,000,000 was kept (for rent).”

C. The Plaintiff is currently holding the above cash custody certificate.

From October 25, 2011 to May 2, 2016, the Defendant remitted total of KRW 6,050,000 to the Plaintiff.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, and Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) that the Defendant loaned the Plaintiff’s fraternity to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the fraternity to C, a fraternity owner, to the Defendant; thereafter, the Plaintiff received a cash custody certificate from the Defendant in Chapter 2.

(2) On June 10, 2010, the Defendant requested to lend money to the Defendant and borrowed KRW 55 million in cash held by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and received the remainder of one cash custody certificate.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the money stated in the claim.

B. Each of the above cash custody certificates alleged by the defendant is prepared by the defendant to C at the request of C, and its content is about monetary transactions between the plaintiff and C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. According to the following facts and circumstances, according to the evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 3-2, Eul evidence No. 5-1, 2, Eul evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 7-1, 2, and Eul No. 8-1, 8-6, and the whole purport of arguments in part of the witness testimony No. C, which are acknowledged as being consistent with the plaintiff's argument, part of the witness C's testimony cannot be believed as it is in light of the following facts and circumstances: