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

A. The Plaintiff is an aircraft pilot, and the network E (Death on August 21, 2012) is a private aircraft expert, who was the representative director of FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

B. As between November 9, 201 and May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred each of the money indicated in the table below (hereinafter “instant remittance table”) to the account in the name of the network E (CF G).

The amount of 5,00,000,000 on November 9, 201, 201; 60,000,000 on January 27, 2012; 210,000 on February 21, 2011; 3,00,000 on February 21, 20, 200 on February 201, 201; 4,000 on November 28, 201; 3,00,00 on August 10, 20,00 on August 30, 208; 10,000,00 on April 270, 200, 200; 3,000,000 on April 16, 200, 2000; 3,5,000 on May 16, 201, 2008;

C. On January 6, 2012 and February 27, 2012, the network E purchased three aircraft under the name of F (hereinafter “instant aircraft”) and registered with the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. At that time, the said three aircraft was leased to Hanskian Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Hanscar”).

The network E received the transfer of the rent of the instant aircraft from Hansa as indicated in the following table, and remitted all or part of the said money to the Plaintiff.

The amount of the rent transferred to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2012 (won) shall be the amount of the Plaintiff’s remittance on April 5, 2012, 8,876,000 on April 10, 2012, 8,939,000, 041,00 May 7, 2012, 7, 2012. < Amended by Act No. 11432, May 10, 2012; Act No. 11458, Jun. 12, 2008; Act No. 11873, Jun. 5, 2000; Act No. 11478, Jun. 10, 200; Act No. 11478, Jun. 5, 200; Act No. 11883, Jun. 6, 10, 2012; Act No. 11406

E. Meanwhile, the deceased E’s spouse died on April 5, 201, and the deceased E’s family at the time of death was the Defendants, who were children.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 4 (including paper numbers), and Gap evidence 5, and the result of the response to financial transaction information to Nonghyup Bank, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 is that the Plaintiff, with the Aircraft Purchase Fund, KRW 615,00,000 as the sum set forth in Nos. 1 through 8 of the remittance table of this case.