(1) On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff wired KRW 50,000,00 to the passbook under the name of the Defendant.

B. By June 2, 2016, the Defendant served as an internal director of a stock company C (hereinafter referred to as “in-house director”).

Secondly, on July 1, 2015, Nonparty Company: (a) leased KRW 150,00,000 from D to KRW 150,000,00 of the lease deposit for a building located in Jung-gu, Busan; and (b) the Plaintiff wired KRW 150,000,000 to D from July 1, 2015.

x. On September 5, 2017, the Defendant concluded a mortgage agreement with the Defendant regarding F apartment G, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s M apartment G, the maximum debt amount of which is KRW 250,000,000, and the debtor’s mortgage agreement with the Defendant. On the same day, the Busan District Court completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage”) pursuant to Article 25451 on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. On July 6, 2015, the part concerning remittance 1), the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on July 6, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff comprehensively considered the facts recognized in the above 1-mentioned Paragraph (1) as well as the facts indicated in subparagraph 1: (i) the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50,000 to the Defendant on July 6, 2015; (ii) the Defendant’s remittance of KRW 50,000 to the Nonparty Company or was not deemed to have been remitted to the Nonparty Company or disbursed on behalf of the Nonparty Company (as a result of the entry in the evidence No. 1), it appears that the amount remitted to the Nonparty Company was KRW 21,00,000,000, and KRW 30,000,000 with the Defendant’s separate passbook.

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s establishment registration was completed on the real estate owned by it as the debtor to the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant did not provide reasonable explanation on the establishment of the establishment registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case.