2. The plaintiff's additional claims are all dismissed in this court.

3. Appeal.

A. On December 20, 1968, the Defendant married with D on December 20, 1968, but divorced on December 21, 2010, and completed the registration of the disabled on April 20, 200.

B. From the Plaintiff’s account, KRW 1,9 million was transferred from January 15, 2015 to the Defendant’s account, and KRW 2,50 million was transferred from February 25, 2015 to the Defendant’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 19 million to the Defendant or D on behalf of the Defendant, and paid KRW 10 million after deducting KRW 1 million from the prior interest. On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million, but paid KRW 9.5 million after deducting KRW 5 million from the prior interest.

B. The Defendant did not borrow the said money from the Plaintiff, or did not have the power of representation against D.

In light of the fact that the defendant formally divorced with D and maintains de facto marital relations, D continued financial transactions while keeping the head of the Tong and its seal imprint, and the defendant issued D a certificate of seal imprint and a document for the transfer of ownership on the real estate owned by the defendant or completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage, etc., the defendant borrowed money in the name of D in addition to borrowing money in the name of the defendant, or granted D a basic right of attorney to conduct the overall transaction, or granted D a right of attorney to conduct a general transaction.

In addition, the plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that D's agency act is for the principal, and thus, the defendant shall be held liable for each of the above loans under Article 126 of the Civil Act or Article 129 of the Civil Act. The plaintiff shall be held liable for 30 million won and damages for delay.

C. Even if it is not so, D, even if paid KRW 30 million by the Plaintiff, did not have the intent or ability to repay it, by deceiving the Plaintiff, and acquired it by receiving KRW 30 million, and the Defendant above.