1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion determined and lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant at the rate of 2% per month on June 16, 2010. As such, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 2% per month from June 16, 2010 to the date of full payment.

2. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and witness Eul's testimony, the defendant is the auditor of Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "D"). Eul is the internal director of D; Eul and son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's her son's son's son's son's son's her son's son's her son's son's Da.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 7, it can be acknowledged that C, on July 16, 2010, drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (No. 567 of 2010 of a notary public G Preparation), stating that “A, on June 15, 2010, borrowed KRW 350 million from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff at the maturity of June 15, 2012, and at the interest rate of KRW 2%,” and that “E remitted KRW 100 million to D on April 14, 2010.” Thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff claimed reimbursement of KRW 100 million or interest on KRW 100 million from June 16, 2010 to the date of filing the instant lawsuit was insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff did not have any other evidence to support the Defendant’s testimony.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion.