The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The lower court: (a) began with the Plaintiff and the Defendant living together on the premise of marriage from September 2009 on the premise that they were married.

7. The fact that he maintained a de facto marital relationship until the time that the plaintiff started living with the defendant, and that the defendant's bonds were arranged by directly remitting the defendant's bonds to C which are the creditor of the defendant, and that there was no explicit loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time, or that the plaintiff did not request the defendant to prepare a loan certificate, etc., and that if the defendant paid the plaintiff a salary of at least 1 million won per month to the plaintiff as living expenses, etc. during the maintenance of a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, it seems that such relationship continued to exist if the de facto marital relationship was maintained, and that the plaintiff attempted to settle the relation with the defendant, such as writing of a summary, and that "the plaintiff's spouse" was sought to return the above money to the defendant from October 10, 209 when the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case.

The fact that the defendant remitted KRW 25 million to C, a creditor of the defendant, is not sufficient to deem the plaintiff to have lent the above money to the defendant.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, although some inappropriate points in the reasoning of the judgment below are found in this part of the judgment below, it is just in conclusion that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lent KRW 25 million to the defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of logical and empirical rules and the free evaluation of evidence beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Kim Jae-tae