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

A. On June 1, 2001, the Defendant married with the Plaintiff’s child C, but the agreement was married on June 13, 2013.

B. Around February 2005, C entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the above apartment with respect to D apartment (around 2007, the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis was changed to KRW 770 million), and around February 201, C entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the above apartment. Around February 2011, C entered into a lease agreement between the former lease deposit and the amount equivalent to KRW 284 million with respect to the apartment in Incheon Songdo. The deposit for the lease on a deposit basis was paid to the Plaintiff’s money, and the amount of KRW 284 million was returned to the Plaintiff.

C. On October 22, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 133,770,000 to the foreign exchange bank account under the Defendant’s name. On October 28, 2008, KRW 135,000,000 was withdrawn. On the following day, KRW 135,01,056 was deposited to the Samsung Securities account under the name of C, and the said money was used as the purchase price for shares on October 31, 2008.

On October 31, 2008, from the new bank account under the Plaintiff’s name, KRW 250 million was deposited in the Samsung Securities account in the name of Samsung Securities on the same day, and used from November 11, 2008 to the 17th day of the same month as the stock purchase fund.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2-7 evidence, purport of whole pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. In the first instance of the determination on the claim for the deposit for lease on a deposit basis, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff lent the deposit for lease on a deposit basis to the Defendant and sought the return of the remaining deposit for lease on a deposit basis other than KRW 284 million returned. However, according to the evidence No. 1-2 submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff lent the deposit for lease to C and the Defendant, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was aware of the lending of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis. Recognizing that the Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s money for stock investment, the Plaintiff thought that it was in depth and wrong behavior, thereby constituting the main purpose, and the amount of the debt amount.