Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On October 11, 2010, the Plaintiff married with the Defendant’s his/her father and wife, but was divorced on April 5, 2013.

B. From June 24, 2009 to August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff deposited an amount equivalent to KRW 20,400,000 in the Defendant’s bank account.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,400,000 to the Defendant from June 24, 2009 to August 20, 2012.

Appellant and seek the return thereof.

B. Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties provided and received money, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she provided it, the Plaintiff had the burden of proving the fact of lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014; 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). 2) The Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff had a marital relationship with the Defendant’s wife C during the period of assertion, and that there was money transaction between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C, including the fact that the Defendant or C deposited money into the Plaintiff’s account, and that the Plaintiff was indicted as the charge of deceiving C under the name of investment, and that there was money transaction under the name of investment money, it is difficult to readily conclude that the deposit payment details submitted by the Plaintiff is a legal cause for the receipt of money.

3) Therefore, the evidence produced by the Plaintiff alone lent KRW 20,400,00 to the Defendant.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.