A. On March 2016, the Plaintiff visited the office of the law firm D located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to provide consultation on his/her divorce case, and only the Defendant who served as the office of the law firm D at that time.

B. On March 3, 2016, after consultation with the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the law firm D to delegate the delegated affairs of the first instance court on the “Divorce and Division of Property” case.

The plaintiff in the same month.

7. The start money was remitted to the account of law firm D in the amount of KRW 5.5 million.

C. Since then, the Defendant told the Plaintiff that “if the Plaintiff has deposited money in the Plaintiff’s account, it would be an account inquiry during the lawsuit and thus be disadvantageous to division of property, and if there is an insurance, it would withdraw the deposit, and if there is an insurance, it would be terminated to keep the said money in the custody of the Plaintiff.”

On March 10, 2016 and November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff trusted the Defendant’s horse and delivered KRW 45,800,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Defendant in cash and in check.

The Defendant deposited the money received from the Plaintiff into the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff demanded the return of the said money to the Defendant on the need of the money, but the Defendant rejected the return by asserting that D had decided to keep the said money for the purpose of appropriation of litigation costs.

Accordingly, on August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff sent the content-certified mail demanding the termination of the delegation contract and the return of the amount of custody to D and the Defendant.

E. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant due to the suspicion of fraud, etc., and the prosecutor belonging to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office held the Defendant not to be detained in fraud.

F. Until now, the Plaintiff was returned KRW 10,000,000, out of the above money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s horses (basic facts C.) are false, and the Plaintiff is affiliated with this, thereby raising an objection to the Defendant.