1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on September 18, 201, KRW 30 million on November 21, 201 of the same year, and KRW 20 million on February 20, 2012 to the Defendant at 3% of each interest month (in light of the fact that there is a direct passbook transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and that the amount of the money paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as the subject of investment is not specified, while the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is not specified, it is evident that it is a monetary loan relationship), and that the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as a specified amount is deemed to constitute interest. In view of the fact that the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as the principal on November 29, 2011, KRW 20 million on the principal, KRW 60 million on October 17, 200, KRW 750,000 on December 19, 2012.

3. 19.9 million won has been repaid.

Meanwhile, 139,726 won exceeding 30% per annum, the interest rate of 600,000 won, which the Plaintiff received from the Defendant on October 17, 201, exceeds 30% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act, shall be appropriated for the repayment of principal.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 50,461,311 (=the principal amount of KRW 49,860,274) and delay damages on the balance of the principal amount of KRW 601,037).

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that: (a) upon receiving a request from the Plaintiff to make an investment from the Defendant, who is the Defendant’s branch of the Handphone business, received money from the Defendant and made an investment in C; and (b) thereafter, C failed to operate the business; and (c) deposited the Plaintiff’s revenue from C to the Plaintiff; and (d) thus, there was no money loan contract concluded between the Defendant

2. In the event of money transaction between the parties to the judgment, the burden of proof on whether the transaction was based on the monetary loan contract shall be deemed to be the borrower, and there is a lack to recognize that the money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant was based on the circumstances, evidence, and the result of the personal examination of the plaintiff alone.