1. All claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that on February 2018, he/she purchased and used the Mapo (Sae-Ba) around 2,40,000,000 won, and asked the Defendant to return it to the Defendant’s use of only two months. On April 20, 2018, he/she lent his/her massage to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not comply with the Plaintiff’s request for return.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the defendant shall deliver the massage to the plaintiff and, if the execution of delivery is impossible, 2.4 million won should be paid.

In regard to this, the Defendant’s disposal on September 27, 2018, on the ground that the Plaintiff was the Defendant, not the Plaintiff’s marbling, but the marma was the Defendant, but the marma could not be used.

The argument is asserted.

2. The arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant are conflicting.

In the end, the reason that he lent a horse and the plaintiff should prove the market price of the horse.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone that the Plaintiff leased the massage machine to the Defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim, including the claim for payment under the premise of “loan”, cannot be accepted in entirety, and it is so decided as per Disposition.