1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the defendant's company that runs the housing construction business.

B. The Plaintiff transferred totaling KRW 68 million to the Defendant account (i.e., KRW 20 million on December 4, 2018; ② KRW 15 million on December 14, 2018; ③ KRW 25 million on January 3, 2019; ④ KRW 8 million on January 30, 2019; hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant money”).

C. On June 29, 2019, the Defendant issued the following documents to the Plaintiff on June 29, 2019:

In order to borrow from the above amount until December 31, 2019, the sum of the gold sale million won ( 40,000,000) plus the gold sale million won ( 108,000,000) at the time of repayment shall be paid to the sum of the above amount ( 68,00,000) 31 December 2019.

On January 2, 2019, the borrower (Defendant) (2) transferred KRW 84,648,767 (hereinafter “Defendant’s repayment”) to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7, 9, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Defendant, claiming by the Plaintiff, promised to return the money received to the Plaintiff twice and received investment in the instant money.

Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 44,551,233 [the principal of the instant money = KRW 68 million (the amount equivalent to the value-added tax - KRW 6.8 million) - Defendant’s repayment amounting to KRW 84,648,767]; and

B. (1) The record (No. 1) that contains a conversation with the defendant representative director does not have a statement to return the money received from the plaintiff to twice.

Rather, the Defendant stated that the loan certificate of this case should be paid KRW 18 million to the Plaintiff.

In light of these circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion even if the evidence submitted is considered as a whole.

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that he agreed to receive more money than the Defendant’s reimbursement is without merit.

The plaintiff unilaterally uses the loan certificate of this case, which includes the amount less than the promise.