1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2012, the Defendant, who operates a golf course with the trade name, “Roster-based golf club,” asked E to arrange for borrowing money by collateralizing golf club membership, such as the sale of golf membership is low and the payment of construction cost of golf club has not been repaid.

B. On March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff and D received two copies of VIP membership rights of the above golf course (hereinafter “instant membership rights”) equivalent to KRW 180,000,000 from D’s membership deposit under the name of D on March 16, 2012, and the Plaintiff paid a cashier’s checks equivalent to KRW 50,00,000 at face value, and KRW 100,000,000 at face value, and the said checks were delivered to the Defendant.

C. From March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff or D and its branch members used the above golf course 3 to 4 times a week.

On June 1, 2012, KRW 100,000 was deposited in the Plaintiff’s National Bank Account (Account Number G) account, and the client’s column indicated the “Round” but the actual money was transferred from H’s new bank account (Account Number I).

The plaintiff gave the above money to D around that time.

E. D submitted to the Defendant a written waiver of the instant membership after the first order of June 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness B, D, and C's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and D lent KRW 150,00,000 to the Defendant. Among them, the Plaintiff did not recover KRW 50,000,000, which is the Plaintiff’s share, so the Defendant is liable to pay the said loan and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant did not correspond to anyone who is the other party, and borrowed money from the other party, and the plaintiff also assessed the value of the security, regardless of who is the other party.