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

On January 13, 2011, the Plaintiff married with the Defendant’s father C, and divorced on January 22, 2015.

After divorce with C, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,800,000 over five times as follows:

The Plaintiff asserted that the amount paid on March 9, 2015, KRW 33,000,000,000 as of April 10, 2015, KRW 5,000,000 on April 22, 2015, and KRW 2,800,000 on April 24, 2015 [based on recognition] did not dispute any of the grounds for recognition]. The Plaintiff asserted that the amount paid to the Defendant was a loan of KRW 50,80,00,00, and claimed against the Defendant the remainder of KRW 47,80,000 after deducting the remainder of KRW 3,00,00 from the amount paid by the Defendant.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff only donated money in good faith to his/her father C and his/her father in combination with adjudication, and it cannot be viewed as a loan.

However, even if it is recognized that there is the amount of money between the parties, the reason that the plaintiff received it is a loan for consumption, and if the defendant asserts that it was received due to a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it was received due to the loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015). However, the Plaintiff did not submit any material supporting the lending of the said money to the Defendant, in addition to the lending of the said money.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and arguments as set forth in subparagraphs 1-1 through 6 of the evidence No. 1-6, the Plaintiff, even after having divorced from the Defendant’s father C, is found to have given or attempted to give a variety of gifts (including gifts, such as high-priced bags, among them) while communicating with C, even after having been divorced from the Defendant’s father C. However, C has responded to the purport that he would be provokingd against the Plaintiff and that he would be provokingd against the gifts

In addition, according to the contents of No. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the evidence No. 4 is examined.