A. The plaintiff and the defendant are South Korea.

B. On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50,000,00 to C’s account.

C. On October 29, 2015, C sold D Apartment E apartment units to the Defendant, and the above KRW 50,000,000 was paid as part of the balance that the Defendant should pay to C.

2. The parties' assertion

A. 50,000,000 won, which was remitted to the Plaintiff’s assertion, was loaned to the Defendant by the Plaintiff after one month of the due date.

The defendant lent the remainder of apartment purchase to the defendant in a way that he transfers the remainder to the seller directly.

such performance shall be demanded.

B. On July 27, 2016, the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s father’s father’s G site, and the Defendant’s father’s father and four children (the Plaintiff, the Defendant, the Defendant, 3 women H, and 4 women I) were donated. Around that time, four children donated on July 30, 2016, who collected KRW 50,000 each, to use for common expenses related to the parents, and the Defendant, who was the mother, collected KRW 50,000,000.

50,000,000 won that the Plaintiff remitted to C is only a collection that the Plaintiff intended to contribute, not a loan.

C. The Plaintiff’s father’s land owned by her mother and four children (not including 6 children, excluding J and her children residing in the U.S. and her children residing in the J and the U.S.) are donated each 1/5 shares, and the Plaintiff’s her son and her son and son agreed to collect 50,000,000 each to use the her son and son’s son’s common expenses around that time.

However, since the entity, etc. to manage the same fund has not yet been determined, there is no reason for the plaintiff to send the contribution to the defendant.

The above money is only the money that the Defendant lent to it as the remainder of the apartment is insufficient.

The plaintiff was transferred.