A. On August 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) went to go on to go on to go on; (b) went to go on to go on; and (c) was living together with the Plaintiff’s family at the Plaintiff’s residence from November 2018 to June 2019.

Postal remittances 1. 10. 30. 30, 80, 00, 200. 2. 2, 300, 300, 400 won 4. 50, 200, 300, 4000 on 24, 2018; 50, 60. 8. 18. 60, 200, 200. 408, 20. 8. 19, 200, 20. 8. 20, 200, 19. 8. 40, 200, 200. 8. 8. 20, 200, 2008. 8. 20, 200, 19. 8. 20, 200, 200, 8. 200, 2008

B. From September 30, 2017 to June 24, 2019, the Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 48,410,000 to the Defendant’s account as follows:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 18 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that, among the money remitted to the Defendant’s account, the money remitted by the Defendant after the end of March 2019 at which the Defendant was on his/her workplace was on and after the end of March 2019, the Plaintiff sought the return of KRW 42,910,000 as the sum stated in Nos. 1 through 20 of the said Table, by asserting that the money previously transferred was lent.

(2) As to this, the defendant asserts that the above money is not only a donation to the defendant who is a teaching system or de facto marital relationship or a donation of money equivalent to living expenses.

B. When the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, it shall be viewed as the lending.