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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the spouse of the deceased D (Death on September 28, 2015, hereinafter “the deceased”).

On January 30, 2015, the Deceased lent KRW 100,000,00 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant money”).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 60,000,000 won according to the plaintiff's inheritance share among the above loans to the plaintiff, who is the deceased D's heir, and damages for delay.

B. Although the defendant alleged that he received KRW 100,000,000 from the deceased on the date and time of claiming the plaintiff, the above amount was merely a donation by the deceased to the defendant, not that of the defendant borrowed from the deceased.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there is the receipt of money between the parties, the plaintiff asserts the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, and the defendant asserts that it was received due to the loan for consumption, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it was received due to the loan

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). B.

If the deceased paid the money to the defendant around January 2015, the purport of the entire argument is added to the evidence Nos. 1 and 8.

However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as a result of the order of submission of tax information to the head of the tax office of the first instance and the head of the tax office of the first instance, (i) the deceased and the defendant to submit a loan for consumption, such as a loan certificate or receipt, have not been prepared, (ii) the deceased and the defendant have been traveling abroad at the same time on December 2014, and (iii) the deceased maintained a close relationship with the deceased at the time when they delivered the instant money to the defendant, such as only several times and contact, and within January 2015, the deceased maintained a close relationship between the deceased and the defendant at the time when they delivered the instant money to the defendant, and (iv) there is no evidence to deem that there was an agreement between the time limit for payment