1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant borrowed a loan with the Plaintiff’s intent to repay the amount of KRW 10 million on March 14, 2014 by April 6, 2014, and subsequently borrowed a loan again with the Plaintiff’s intent to repay the amount of KRW 30 million on April 7, 2014 within 15 days.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 40 million and damages for delay.

B. On March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to operate food materials marina with the trade name “C” and operated food materials marina from May 1, 2014.

From May 6, 2014 to May 22, 2014, the Defendant embezzled an amount equivalent to KRW 27,326,473 in total of food materials and industrial products stored in the said food materials marina by taking them out to DBD operated by the Defendant, and embezzled KRW 300,000 in total for personal purposes by arbitrarily remitting the amount of KRW 50,50,000 on April 30, 2014, while keeping the Plaintiff’s Han Bank CC Card in the name of the Plaintiff, for each personal purpose.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of KRW 30,326,473 as compensation for damages caused by the above embezzlement and the delay compensation therefor.

2. Determination

A. As to whether the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize the loan claim only with the statement in the health account statement and evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the loan claim.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument as to the statement No. 2, the Defendant merely borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff’s attached on May 5, 2014.

B. First of all, as to the claim for damages, it is not sufficient to recognize the amount equivalent to KRW 27,326,473, which the Defendant kept in the food materials marina, by arbitrarily shipping it to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and embezzlement thereof. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, it is written in Gap evidence No. 3.