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

A. On May 16, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for divorce and solatium with the Seoul Family Court (Seoul Family Court Decision 2014No301751, Oct. 14, 2015) on the ground that the conflict between the Defendant and the Defendant has deepened due to the nature difference and appropriation of living expenses, etc. while the Plaintiff was living together with the Defendant after filing a marriage report with the Defendant on May 16, 2013. On October 2013, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant are divorced” on October 14, 2015.

B. The Defendant appealed on May 13, 2016, but was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

Seoul Family Court 2015Reu31507 (Main Office), 2015Reu31514 (Counterclaim))

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 50,000,000 on December 23, 2013, and KRW 20,000,000 on the 24th of the same month, and KRW 10,000,000 on the 26th of the same month (= KRW 20,000,000 on the 20,000,000,000 on the 10,000,000 on the 26th of the same month) to the agricultural bank account in the name of his father C.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-2, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Each of the parties’ assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant for the repayment of the Defendant’s obligation of the loan. However, the Plaintiff donated KRW 14,00,000 to the Plaintiff during the marriage period for use in paying the increased amount of the deposit for the lease deposit. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s claim for return of KRW 36,00,000, the difference, as a loan.

(2) The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion is to appropriate for the payment of increase in the living expenses and the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, which were already disbursed while the plaintiff did not pay the living expenses according to the credit card under the defendant's name.