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

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant church received KRW 100 million from C on March 4, 2014, as indicated in the grounds of the claim, and claims for payment of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, which is the creditor of C, due to the cancellation of this gift contract and its restoration to its original state. 2) As to this, the Defendant church first claims that the Defendant church borrowed KRW 100 million from D on March 4, 2014 and paid it in full, but the Defendant church did not receive a donation of KRW 100 million from D.

B. 1) In full view of Gap's evidence Nos. 9, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 8, and 9, and the fact-finding results and the whole purport of the arguments about the heads of the subordinate offices E, the following facts can be recognized. D is the director of the defendant church, and Eul is the director of the defendant church as the spouse of D.

B) On March 4, 2014, at the passbook C, the Defendant church transferred KRW 100 million to the passbook of the Defendant church. C) and the Defendant church deposited KRW 100,000,000 in total with the passbook in the name of C, KRW 80,000 on August 19, 2014, KRW 5,000,000 on October 13, 2014, and KRW 100,000,000 on October 20, 2014. 2) In light of such recognized facts, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the gift contract between the Defendant church and C was concluded as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this premise is rejected without further determination as to the existence of the preserved claim, etc., which is disputed by the original and the Defendant.

2. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected for this reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.