2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is the spouse of the network E (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the Selection C and D are their children.

On April 12, 2010, the deceased died and succeeded to the property of the deceased, C, D, and C, 2/7, and 2/7.

B. On September 30, 2005, before the death, the Deceased drafted a “agreement for rent,” and paid KRW 145 million to the Defendant. The Deceased completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 150 million on each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the Incheon District Court’s reinforcement registry office No. 25423, Oct. 5, 2005.

C. On July 29, 2014, the date of distribution of the voluntary auction procedure (F) conducted on the instant real estate, the sale price of the said real estate was distributed to the right holder who takes precedence over the mortgagee’s right to collateral security, and the Plaintiff, Claimant, and D did not have been fully distributed.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant borrowed the above KRW 145 million from the Deceased.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 62,142,860, each of the following amounts, KRW 41,428,570 to the plaintiff in accordance with the inheritance shares in the above borrowed amounts.

B. The Defendant’s above KRW 145 million is not the borrowed money but the investment money to be distributed profits from the disposal of the instant real estate.

However, as the market price of the above real estate has lowered, no profit has occurred.

The defendant has no obligation to pay the above money.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s KRW 145 million received from the Deceased appears to be not the borrowed amount but the invested amount.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit because the above money is based on the premise that it is the borrowed money.

① The Defendant and the Deceased entered into a contract with the following terms on the same day as the date of the preparation of the said “Agreement on Remuneration.”

[Written Contract] Goods: Real estate of this case.