1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and its delay damages to the plaintiff, since he lent 30 million won to the defendant three times.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above money is not the money borrowed from the plaintiff, but the money received from C as business activity expenses, so there is no obligation to comply with the plaintiff's request.

2. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 and No. 2, the fact that the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name was transferred from January 27, 2014 to the Defendant’s account, KRW 10 million on January 28, 2014, KRW 5 million on January 28, 2014, and KRW 15 million on March 6, 2014 is recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances, each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 may be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, the above fact alone lacks to confirm that the person who lent money to the defendant is the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, without examining whether the nature of the above money is a loan, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

In other words, there is no loan certificate prepared in the name of the plaintiff or no receipt issued against the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 states that the name of deposit owner A (D company), the “president”, or “the direction of the President” in the transfer remarks column. If the facts that C was the representative of D company and that C was the lending of C upon the Defendant’s request, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

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