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, through C on July 28, 2009, remitted to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant KRW 75 million, KRW 5 million on May 1, 2009, KRW 10 million on May 11, 2009, and KRW 10 million on May 29, 2009, respectively, and delivered KRW 10 million in cash to D’s directors through C.

B. On November 2015, the Plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint against D around early 2015, but D was subject to a disposition on June 16, 2016 that D was suspected of having been subject to suspicion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul 2, 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Around April 2009, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) heard from D that “A good land remains in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (b) the purchase fund is insufficient; (c) if a person lends KRW 100 million, he/she would sell the land within one year and complete payment; and (d) lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant company.”

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan 100 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a case where a remittance is made by transferring money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes. In order for the remittance to be recognized as a loan, the fact that the money was paid under a loan for consumption must be proved, and the burden of proof therefor shall be borne by the plaintiff who asserts it.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone proves that the Plaintiff leased KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

① From April 8, 2009 to July 28, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant four times, and the instrument of disposition, such as a loan certificate or a letter, was not prepared at the time of borrowing.

Since then, the Plaintiff did not receive interest from the Defendant.