1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of loan

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent total amount of KRW 36,00,000 to the Defendant on October 18, 2013 and October 26, 2013 (the People’s Republic of China’s Order 200,000) (the People’s Republic of China’s Order).

B. (i) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 1-3, is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 36,000,000 to the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

D. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above loan assertion is rejected.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of transfer money

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i) borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and C lent to the Defendant the sum of KRW 36,000,000 (the People’s Republic of China’s 200,000) on October 18, 2013 and October 26, 2013.

See C transferred the above loan claims to the Plaintiff.

B. (i) In full view of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it is recognized that C remitted to the defendant about 150,000 bills of People’s Republic of China on October 18, 2013, and 50,000 bills of People’s Republic of China on October 26, 2013.

D. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence Nos. 1-3, is insufficient to acknowledge that the above 200,000 bill was a loan to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1-3, it is recognized that C was responsible for profits and losses relating to the restaurant business in China and invested 200,000 bills to the Defendant, but it is only recognized that the restaurant business failed.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that even if Article 2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “A” shall apply to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff shall be subject to the obligation to pay the claim.

Applicant, therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's claim for the above amount.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.