1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Plaintiff

The gist of the assertion was that the Plaintiff was an accounting employee of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) in which Defendant C actually operated.

The Plaintiff borrowed approximately KRW 500 million in total to the non-party company once in accordance with the request of the Defendant C from March 2013 to the retirement of the non-party company, but did not receive KRW 48,306,830 among them.

Defendant C abused its corporate personality by establishing a company substantially identical to the non-party company in order to evade the debt of the above loan of the non-party company.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,306,830 and damages for delay.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has a loan claim against the non-party company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff has a claim for loans of KRW 48,306,830 to Nonparty Company is not acceptable.

It is difficult to understand in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff, which is only an accounting officer of the non-party company, lent approximately KRW 500 million to the non-party company on a white loan basis without a loan certificate.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 4 (B) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a serial number), the fact that a majority of the funds of the non-party company was deposited in the name of the plaintiff's husband D, etc. is recognized (the plaintiff alleged that the account of the non-party company was seized and traded in the name of D, etc., but it appears that the account of the non-party company could have been used normally at the time). However, it cannot be seen whether the above deposit was made due to a monetary loan between the plaintiff and the non-party company.

Even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff is fully entitled to deposit and withdrawal of the funds of the non-party company stated in Gap evidence 4.