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

A. The Plaintiff is the legal status of D, and Defendant B and C are the father and mother of each D.

B. On September 27, 2006, the defendants' apartment units Nos. 101 and 207 of E (hereinafter "the apartment units of this case") at permanent residence on September 27, 2006 are the same year.

7.21.21.The registration of transfer of ownership (one-half of co-owners' shares) was made on the ground of sale.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is jointly obligated to return the above loan to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale price of the apartment of this case is insufficient due to the Plaintiff’s lack of the purchase and sale price of the apartment of this case from the Plaintiff, his parent, and around September 2006 upon the request of the Defendants to lend money and around September 2006.

According to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 1, the plaintiff paid KRW 117,00,00 to the defendants around September 2006, and some of the above amounts were deemed to have been used for the payment of the remainder of the apartment complex of this case. Meanwhile, the plaintiff and the defendants did not prepare a loan certificate or cash custody certificate, and there is no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the above amount with the defendants before considering divorce on the ground that the plaintiff paid the above amount to the defendants, and that there is no evidence suggesting that the plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the above amount (the plaintiff filed a claim for divorce and division of property against D on June 28, 2016). In light of the above facts of recognition alone, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff lent the above amount to the defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

The plaintiff again argued that the defendants are obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiff according to the agreement, since the defendants agreed to pay the above amount.