1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s establishment of a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant on July 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”) does not conflict between the parties.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff based on the instant loan transaction agreement, and paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s voluntary agency or cooperation store, which is only the Defendant’s voluntary agency or cooperation store (hereinafter “voluntary love”), and the Defendant arbitrarily consumed the said loan and acquired the said loan by deception.

Therefore, since the loan transaction agreement of this case loses its validity, the plaintiff sought confirmation that there is no obligation of the plaintiff under the loan transaction agreement of this case, and also sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 14,152,449 of the principal and interest of loan paid to the defendant under the loan transaction agreement of this case.

B. As seen earlier, it is recognized that the instant loan transaction agreement itself was normally concluded.

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the loan under the instant loan transaction agreement was not paid to the Plaintiff, even if such circumstance is acknowledged, there is no ground to deem that the instant loan transaction agreement, which was normally concluded, loses its validity retroactively, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it otherwise.

[In full view of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of this case, it can only be recognized that the loan was paid in full with the loan transaction agreement of this case (Evidence No. 1) and the special terms and conditions regarding the payment of the loan (Evidence No. 1). Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the loan transaction agreement of this case is null and void is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed for reasons.