1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendants’ husband and wife knew the horses that “I have invested in the money to pay off the profit”, and that between June 21, 2010 and December 11, 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 39.9 billion to Defendant B’s corporate bank passbook account from June 21, 2010 to Defendant B’s corporate bank account.

Even thereafter, additional money was remitted over several occasions.

The amount remitted by the Plaintiff to Defendant B shall be deemed as the loan.

The Plaintiff seeks partial claim against the money remitted to the Defendants, and seek payment of KRW 100 million and damages for delay.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred approximately KRW 390 million over 26 times from June 21, 2010 to December 11, 201 of the same year to the passbook account in the name of defendant B (hereinafter "the money in this case").

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the statement No. 2 and the purport of the entire argument of this case, it is difficult to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone lent the money of this case or KRW 100 million, which is part of the money, to the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

While the Plaintiff transferred the instant money to Defendant B over several hundreds, the Plaintiff did not request the Defendants to collect all disposal documents, such as a letter of promise to return the said money or a letter of loan.

Moreover, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not have any kind of relationship.

Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the instant money cannot be deemed as a loan solely on the ground that it was a transfer of the instant money.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that only KRW 100 million is a loan, but there is no reason to regard only the above money as a loan).

B. On the other hand, it is not clear whether the Plaintiff’s assertion itself constitutes a loan, and that it is the money obtained by deceit by illegal acts, such as deceiving the Defendants, even if so, the Plaintiff’s claim.