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

A. The Plaintiff’s wife, the Plaintiff’s wife, lent KRW 86,900,00 to the Defendant from December 27, 2012 to March 31, 2016, or paid without any legal cause. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the inheritor of the Deceased, KRW 86,90,000, and delay damages.

B. Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute over the fact that money was given and received between the parties as to the allegation of lending, the Plaintiff is liable to prove that the cause of the receipt and payment of money was a loan for consumption, while the Defendant asserts that it was a loan for consumption, if so,

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, etc.). (b) According to the statement in Gap evidence 4, 10, and Eul evidence 16, and the result of the response to the order to submit financial transaction information to Han Bank Co., Ltd. by this court, the deceased may be recognized that he/she remitted the sum of KRW 86,90,000 to the bank account under the name of the defendant over 14 times from December 27, 2012 to March 31, 2016.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the overall purport of the arguments to the statements and images of evidence Nos. 2, 11, 2 through 6, 16, 17, and 19, namely, ① the deceased and the defendant have maintained a decent relationship for a considerable period of time until the deceased died, like the church sex activities, conference, etc., together with the deceased. The deceased trusted the defendant to the extent that he would take as a witness when he testamentary gift of the shares of the apartment in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, which are jointly owned by the plaintiff, to the extent that he would have been in possession of the apartment in his possession, ② there is no circumstance to deem that the deceased demanded the return of the money he paid to the defendant. ③ In view of the contents of the bank accounts of the defendant and the defendant’s husband, there is a large amount of cash withdrawal, and thus, the possibility of giving and receiving each one’s money, such as consolation money, etc., to the deceased in cash kept by the defendant as argued by the defendant cannot be ruled out.