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

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Defendant is a person who was in de facto marital relationship with the deceased.

B. Around 14:00 on April 24, 2010, the Deceased died due to a traffic accident that occurred in a high tunnel gate, which is located in Thai-si, Thai-dong. The Samsung Life Co., Ltd., which concluded an insurance contract with the Deceased, deposited KRW 100,000,000 of the deceased’s death insurance money into the Plaintiff’s account on March 17, 201.

C. On March 17, 201, the Plaintiff remitted the above KRW 100,000 to the Defendant. D.

As the inheritor of the deceased, the deceased is D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on a claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. After the death of the deceased, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff donated KRW 100,000,00 to the defendant on the condition that the defendant rears D, and since the defendant did not rear D and thereby fulfilled the condition of rescission, the defendant must return the above KRW 100,000 to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The reasoning of the judgment is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff donated the above KRW 100,00,00 to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant rears D, and the Plaintiff’s claim for this part of this case is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Determination as to loan claims

A. The Plaintiff, on November 5, 2009, claimed that the Deceased lent KRW 27,00,000 to the Defendant on or around November 5, 2009, and sought payment of the said money. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above lending, and there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff, not the inheritor of the Deceased, has the right to claim the said loan. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff alleged that around February 7, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 12.