1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion argues that the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay, on March 25, 2013 upon receipt of the Defendant’s request by C to lend KRW 30 million to the Defendant on the condition that he/she becomes the guarantor, and upon receipt of the instant loan certificate (Evidence A A) in the name of the Defendant on March 25, 2013, and thereafter lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant merely prepared and executed the loan certificate of this case upon the request of the plaintiff to prepare the loan certificate stating C as the debtor and the guarantor for the purpose of presenting C to the husband, and that it cannot accept the plaintiff's claim since it did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, the following circumstances are insufficient to deem that a monetary loan contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant solely on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s evidence or internal evidence was presented, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① In lending money to the Defendant via C, the Plaintiff did not fully state the important contents of the monetary loan agreement, such as interest or maturity, with the Defendant, and even if there was any space between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not verify that the party borrowing the actual contact with the Defendant was the Defendant.

② Although the Defendant prepared and delivered to C the instant loan certificate indicating himself/herself as the obligor and C as the surety, the said loan certificate was not indicated by the obligee, and the Defendant expressed his/her intent to lend money from the Plaintiff solely on the loan certificate.

It is difficult to view that the Defendant had an intention to borrow money from the Plaintiff or on the pretext of the Defendant.

③ The Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the account of Non-Defendant C, and interest also.