1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the grounds for each of the claims in this case by the Plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, first of all, the Plaintiff lent KRW 33,946,930 to the Defendant several times on July 8, 2019 to January 21, 2020, however, the Plaintiff’s partial descriptions and partial testimony of the witness C are insufficient to recognize such lending, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s internal payment cannot be accepted.

나. 원고와 피고가 2019. 7.경 -별지에 나오는- <부동산(상가) 월세계약서(☞ 갑 3; 이하 편의상 거기에 표시된 법률행위를 ‘이 사건 임대차계약’이라고 한다)>를 함께 만든 사실에 관하여 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없는 이 사건에서, 원고는 “피고가 정당한 이유 없이 이 사건 임대차계약을 파기”하였다고 주장하면서, 피고를 상대로 피고의 이행거절로 말미암아 원고가 입은 재산상 손해금 5,027만원의 배상을 구하고, 이에 대하여 피고는 이 사건 임대차계약이 이른바 ‘통정한 허위의 의사표시(민법 제108조 제1항)’로서 무효이므로 원고의 위 손해배상청구 부분도 부당하다는 취지로 다툰다.

Therefore, if the argument of both parties is examined and the purport of the whole argument is added to the statement in Eul, Eul, and Eul's witness's testimony, it can be acknowledged that the lease agreement of this case was formally formed without the intention of bearing the obligation pursuant to mutual understanding. Thus, the defendant's argument that the lease agreement of this case should be null and void pursuant to Article 108 (1) of the Civil Code is justifiable, and the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's refusal to implement the lease of this case should be made based on the different premise is not acceptable.

2. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s return of the instant loan and claim for damages cannot be accepted.