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

A. On August 9, 2007, the Plaintiff purchased Seongbuk-gu Seoul Down 402 (hereinafter “this case lending”) from C in the purchase price of KRW 129,000,000 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 31, 2007.

B. From September 2007, the Plaintiff started living together with the Defendant and the Defendant’s children, and liquidated their living together with the Defendant around the winter in 2012.

C. At the time, the Defendant was engaged in the malicious manufacturing business, but the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to pay the amount of money to the employees of the malicious manufacturing business and received KRW 13,00,000 from the Plaintiff on October 13, 2007, and KRW 13,000,000 on November 17, 2007.

On November 19, 2014, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to return the said money.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff (1) is a loan lent without setting a deadline, and the defendant is obligated to return the loan to the plaintiff.

(2) Since the Plaintiff was fully responsible for the purchase cost of the loan of this case, there was no obligation to the Defendant regarding the purchase of the loan of this case.

(3) The Defendant’s act of lending is not a commercial or auxiliary commercial activity, and thus, the statute of limitations for commercial matters does not apply.

B. Defendant (1) cannot be deemed to have given a donation for the Defendant’s business, which was de facto de facto marital relationship, as an intention to return.

(2) When C purchases the loan of this case, the Defendant was liable for KRW 15 million. The Plaintiff purchased the loan of this case in KRW 165 million. At that time, C included the amount to be paid to the Defendant in KRW 35 million in the purchase price, and the Plaintiff bears KRW 80 million in the purchase price, and acquired KRW 50 million in the existing collateral security obligations.

Therefore, when the Plaintiff purchased the instant loan, the Defendant borne KRW 35 million, and even if disposing of the instant loan, the Plaintiff did not return the said loan to the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the defendant has a loan claim of KRW 35,000,000 to the plaintiff.