1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. On April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff claimed to lend KRW 60,000,000 to Defendant B’s face value of KRW 60,00,000 as collateral. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,70,000 to Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)’s account under the name of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and KRW 14,30,000 to Defendant B on April 21, 2010.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the above loans to the Plaintiff.

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that a monetary loan contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this is without merit.

① Promissory notes asserted by the Plaintiff that they were paid as collateral from Defendant B are KRW 60,000,000 in face value, and KRW 4,00 in bill number D, issuer E, and endorser E, as representative director.

② In the event that a promissory note is borrowed in money as a collateral, the borrower will make an endorsement to the endorser of the promissory note. The instant promissory note does not have any endorsement by the Defendants, nor does there exist any disposal document between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, such as a loan certificate and a money loan agreement.

③ The Defendants asserted that the instant promissory note was issued by E Company to raise a subcontract price for apartment-type factory construction works that was concluded between the Defendant Company and E Company, and that F, the representative director thereof, requested the Plaintiff to discount and paid the Plaintiff the discount price directly to the Defendants. The evidence presented in this court corresponds to the Defendants’ assertion.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.