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 claim against the defendant B

A. On July 24, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) between Defendant B and Defendant B, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant B; and (b) Defendant B, while guaranteeing the Plaintiff’s principal amount of KRW 100,000,000, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff profits higher than the market interest rate.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. Fact that there is no dispute over judgment, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff transferred KRW 100,000,000 to the defendant's account in order to invest in the development project of tourist resorts E by the defendant Eul on July 24, 2009, and the defendant Eul purchased KRW 20,000,000 in addition to the above KRW 100,000,000 in addition to the above KRW 20,000,000, it is recognized that the non-indicted No. 456 shares of the D Co., Ltd. were purchased at KRW 120,00,00, but there is no evidence to acknowledge whether there was the above agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Defendant C, the spouse of Defendant B’s assertion, agreed to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 100,000,000.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, on April 5, 2012, the defendant C, the spouse of defendant B, did not have to be able to make good faith. If the defendant C, who is the spouse of defendant B, is wrong, he will be responsible for and resolved. If the plaintiff is found to have sent the handphone text message, which states that the present house is going in the future, that it would not cause any injury to the plaintiff. However, the following circumstances acknowledged in full view of the purport of the present argument, namely, the amount of KRW 10 million paid by the plaintiff, and the amount of KRW 10,00,000 paid by the plaintiff, which is not directly invested by the plaintiff, and the defendant C is not directly invested by the plaintiff.