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

A. The Plaintiff’s deposit account (the national bank, account number C, hereinafter “Defendant’s deposit account”) in the name of the Defendant in the Plaintiff’s deposit account (the “Defendant’s deposit account”) and the same year as KRW 19,60,000 on April 25, 2018.

5. 1.10,000,000 won, and the same year.

5. 23.4,00,000 won (2,000,000 won each time) and the same year.

5. A total of KRW 34,600,000 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant money”) was remitted to each remittance of KRW 1,000,000.

B. The defendant is the mother of D.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 35,000,000 (the sum of KRW 34,600,000 (the sum of KRW 19,600,000 (the Plaintiff’s KRW 20,000 which was deducted from interest) at the time of lending the amount of KRW 34,600,000 (the sum of KRW 19,60,000 which was 20,000) to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant; and (b) the Plaintiff lent KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s Jeju Chapter”).

(2) Even if the above 35,00,000 won was leased to D (the Defendant’s son), the Defendant confirmed the remittance from the Defendant and jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s second proposal”).

(3) Since the defendant jointly with D and received KRW 35,00,000 from the plaintiff and used it as a business fund, it is the fulfillment of joint tort liability under Article 760 of the Civil Code (hereinafter the plaintiff's third proposal).

(3) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 as well as damages for delay (the Plaintiff’s assertion as above).

(2) The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant allowed D, who is the defendant's children, to use the defendant's deposit account without knowing the plaintiff, but D only used the money of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(b).