1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order of the amount of KRW 70,000,000, out of the loan claims the Defendant Company B owns as the High Government District Court 2015Kadan50474 on the ground that there was a claim for the purchase of goods of KRW 101,043,30 to B, and the provisional attachment order was served on the Defendant around that time.

B. The Plaintiff applied for a payment order against B, which was issued by the said court, to the High Government District Court Decision 2015 tea3620, and the said payment order became final and conclusive.

C. On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 70,000,000, out of the claims under the above provisional seizure order, upon the above provisional seizure order, to the original seizure, and received the remainder of KRW 605,000, and received the seizure and collection order, and the above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on April 1, 2016.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the plaintiff lent KRW 119,285,841 to the defendant. Thus, in accordance with the collection order of this case, the defendant did not lend money from the corporation Eul to the defendant, which is equivalent to KRW 70,605,00 of the price of the goods.

B. The existence of a claim to be collected in a judgment of collection amount is a requisite fact and the burden of proof exists against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Health Board, the Japanese Livestock Co., Ltd. on June 19, 2015 to the defendant, and the defendant on June 3, 2015 to the same month.

4. The facts of remitting KRW 100,000 do not conflict between the parties, but on the other hand, the following circumstances, i.e., there are no objective data to prove that a loan for consumption was concluded between Company B and the Defendant as of June 3, 2015 or as of June 4, 2015, and ② the Plaintiff was a stock company B on May 28, 2015, by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries and arguments set forth in Article 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 15 (including the serial number).