A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are the wife-type husband, and the Defendant and D (E) were the married couple.

B. On November 24, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 43 million to the Defendant’s F association account (hereinafter “instant account”) and KRW 43 million on March 2, 2015, including KRW 3 million.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the amount of 43 million won remitted to the account of this case is the amount loaned to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that it is the amount borrowed by the above D, not the defendant.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence and evidence mentioned earlier, written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 12 (including paper numbers), and the witness D’s testimony, and the overall purport of the oral argument is acknowledged. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the money transferred to the Defendant’s account is deemed to have been lent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

The defendant and D husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant and wife") have been in an economically difficult situation due to card payments, interest on apartment loans, etc., and the defendant and wife requested the plaintiff and wife to "if the plaintiff has extended interest on apartment loans, he/she would pay the loan and dispose of the apartment house after one year since he/she has given the loan," and it appears that the money transferred to the above account would have been used as repayment of each card payments, loan obligations, etc. of the defendant and husband or wife, and it would have been used jointly by the defendant and wife. The defendant asserted that the defendant used the above account in cooperation with D in the examination procedure of D in this court, and that the defendant reversed that "the money transferred to the account of this case was borrowed from D, and the defendant was not responsible for it." However, this agreement was reached between the defendant and D.