1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On May 13, 2008, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff; and (b) drafted a certificate of borrowing that the Defendant would repay by December 1, 2008.

Since the defendant did not pay the above loan, it is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant only prepared a loan certificate of KRW 30 million at the Plaintiff’s request on condition that the Defendant secured the Plaintiff’s service for one year at the sports massage place operated by the Plaintiff, but did not actually borrow KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff.

2. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant, on May 13, 2008, borrowed KRW 30 million to the plaintiff on May 13, 2008 and prepared a loan certificate to pay by December 1, 2008 can be acknowledged.

However, even if a loan contract for consumption was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant as a loan contract for consumption based on the above loan certificate, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the delivery of an object (the delivery of KRW 30 million in this case) which is the requirement for the request for the return of the loan, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

[계속된 입증촉구에도 불구하고 원고는 피고에게 3,000만 원을 인도한 방법에 대하여 구체적으로 주장ㆍ입증을 하지 않다가, 5차 변론기일에 피고의 요구로 마사지� 임대보증금 2,000만 원을 대신 지급하였고 나머지1,000만 원은 피고에게 현금을 직접 지급하여 3,000만 원을 대여하였다는 취지로 주장하며 을2호증을 제출하였으나 을2호증의 기재만으로는 원고 주장을 인정하기에 부족하고(을2호증의 작성 경위도 알 수 없고, 피고가 마사지�을 운영하였거나 피고가 원고에게 임대보증금 지급을 부탁할 만한 사정이 있었다고 볼 만한 증거도 없다

(3) The Plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove otherwise. Ultimately, the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove it to the Defendant.