2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

The Plaintiff is an insurance solicitor who runs the business of insurance solicitor and is a person who has a close relationship with the Plaintiff’s mother G (hereinafter referred to as the “former”).

On August 4, 2013, the Deceased died after having left the Defendants, who are children, and the designated parties, as inheritor.

On July 16, 2008, the plaintiff issued to the deceased a cashier's check of KRW 95 million at the face value of the Daejeon Preamdong post office.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 1 and 4 as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is necessary for the Deceased to purchase a house in the name of son F, and the cashier’s checks were issued to the Deceased, as seen in the basic facts, and lent KRW 95 million to the Deceased.

Therefore, the Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, are liable to return the borrowed amount equivalent to their respective inheritance shares.

The Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 89 million from the Deceased on July 10, 2008, and thereafter returned KRW 95 million with interest added thereto. The Plaintiff did not lend KRW 95 million to the Deceased.

Judgment

In the case of a loan claim, if the defendant, even though there was no dispute as to the mistake of money, presents a reasonable ground and contests that money is a loan, the plaintiff must prove that the money is a loan.

In light of the fact-finding results with respect to the Daejeon-dong post office, it is difficult to believe that the delivery of a basic fact-finding check corresponds to the fact of monetary lending, and the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

On July 10, 2008, as claimed by the Defendants, the check amounting to KRW 89 million issued from the Defendant F’s account was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account through the Deceased (the result of the inquiry into the Daejeon Preamdong post office).