1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2015, the Plaintiff stated “principal; KRW 50,00,00,00” from C, and “the maturity of the principal shall be until June 1, 2017,” and “the maturity of the principal shall be until June 1, 2017. The interest shall be transferred to the account as of the end of each month (10% per annum), the Nong Bank Account Number D),” and “debtor B” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

(2) Upon receipt of delivery, C affixed the Defendant’s seal to the name of the Defendant at the bottom of the above loan certificate. Around the date of the instant loan certificate, the Defendant and C were registered as a director E of the medical corporation at the time of the preparation of the instant loan certificate, and the Defendant delegated the use of the seal affixed to the above loan certificate for the hospital’s business. C. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the deposit account in the name of C, and KRW 30,000,000 to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant’s name on June 4, 2015. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant and C transferred each of the 30,000,000 won to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant’s name [including the grounds for recognition], and the purport of the entire pleadings,

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made a loan of KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant by delivering the instant loan certificate from C delegated with the Defendant’s authority and remitting the amount of KRW 30,000 to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant. The Plaintiff sought a return of the loan under the monetary loan agreement entered into with the Defendant.

The defendant asserts that there is no fact that he borrowed money from the plaintiff, and that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. First of all, the defendant asserts that C arbitrarily prepared the evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 1) without authority.

The facts that C, other than the defendant, affix the seal of the defendant on the loan certificate of this case, are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings.

Furthermore, as to whether the act of sealing C was based on a legitimate title delegated by the Defendant, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is the Defendant’s seal.