2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Upon C’s request, D transferred KRW 60 million to the Defendant’s deposit account (hereinafter “instant dispute”) on April 5, 2010.

B. On January 10, 2017, D transferred the loan claim to the Plaintiff on the premise that “C loaned the instant dispute amount to the Defendant under C’s guarantee,” and notified the Defendant of the transfer of the said claim as of June 23, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number)

2. Claims as to the cause of the claim and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted as the cause of the instant claim. The purport of the allegation is that the Defendant, jointly with C, operated the office of illegal private border (Fraud) and jointly used the Defendant’s deposit passbook by using it as an illegal (Fraud) passbook, which constitutes unjust enrichment or tort. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff, a transferee of the claim for return of unjust enrichment or tort, with the amount of KRW 60,000,000,000, and damages for delay thereof. 2) The Defendant merely received partial reimbursement of the amount that the Defendant’s husband lent to C, and did not have any fact that the Defendant borrowed money from D, and the Plaintiff’s assertion was unjust.

B. The Defendant received the transfer of the instant dispute money with C for the purpose of jointly using it for fraud, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Inasmuch as there is no sufficient evidence to prove that C has used the Defendant’s deposit account even with the knowledge of the fact that C was remitted to the Defendant’s deposit account for the same purpose, the Plaintiff’s assertion that is premised on the establishment of the Defendant’s liability for return of unjust enrichment against D or tort according to the aforementioned factual basis is greater.