2. The costs of the lawsuit include the part resulting from the succession.

A. The Plaintiff was a female member of the Defendant’s husband D, and transferred KRW 20 million on September 15, 2004 to each Defendant’s account, and KRW 20 million on September 16, 2004 on the following day.

B. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Intervenor to transfer the claim for return of the money remitted to the Defendant during the instant lawsuit, and notified the Defendant of the following day.

On March 4, 2015, an intervenor filed an application for intervention in the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn from the lawsuit on June 17, 2015 at the first date for pleading.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The intervenor asserts that the above KRW 40 million that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant is a loan.

Even if a loan is not a loan, it asserts that the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred due to the risk and illegal act of receiving money without permission.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 40 million is the money invested by the plaintiff in Lao to E engaged in the planting business, and the defendant only remitted it to F who is an employee of E.

B. Determination 1) The witness G’s testimony appears to correspond to the cause of the claim that the money remitted by the Plaintiff was a loan is difficult to believe for the following reasons. ① G has filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming a loan of KRW 95 million, but has lost its credibility. ② Since the period of July 29, 2004 when G transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40 million to the Defendant from July 29, 2004, and the Plaintiff was the spouse of H, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was unaware of the Plaintiff’s investment. (ii) In light of the fact that G was the Plaintiff’s spouse, it is difficult to recognize that the said remitted money was a loan to the Defendant solely on the basis of each written evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, and No. 3 through No. 6.

3) Rather, Eul 3 through 5 (including paper numbers).