1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Around June 2, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend money to the Defendant for the appointment of an attorney-at-law.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted KRW 3,00,000 to the defendant's account on June 2, 2007.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number, if any, and hereinafter the same), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 2 and 3 of evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 2 and 3, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly prepared and submitted to the investigation agency a complaint to the effect that C and D deception deception by deceiving the original and the Defendant, and 250,000,000 won, and C and D were sentenced to imprisonment for one year and six months in the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2006Da3281 on May 31, 2007, each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for fraud. ② around July 2006, the Defendant appears to have paid 15,00,000 won to the Defendant with the cost of appointing an attorney at bar at the above case. ③ Meanwhile, the court of first instance sentenced C and D to the above criminal case, and had C and D compensate the Defendant for damages from the Defendant’s loan to the Plaintiff’s compensation order.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and this conclusion is concluded.