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

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 shares each of the Defendant’s son, and from December 31, 1986 to February 201, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shared 1/2 shares each of the Plaintiff’s son-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant land”).

(The shares of the Defendant were transferred to E on February 22, 201, due to the gift on February 22, 2011.

On October 4, 2005, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with Tro General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tro General Construction”) to construct a temporary building on the instant land with a construction period fixed from October 5, 2005 to January 31, 2006; and construction cost of KRW 453,200,000 (hereinafter “instant construction”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant construction project obtained construction completion permission after completion of February 20, 2006, and thereafter, until March 2006, the construction cost was invested in an amount equivalent to KRW 300 million in total, and the construction cost was required for KRW 800 million in total. 2) The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 500 million from a corporate bank in the name of the Plaintiff to use for the instant construction cost at the Defendant’s request on November 14, 2005. From December 29, 2005 to April 5, 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 238,616,610 out of the above loans to the Defendant for the construction cost of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above subrogation to the plaintiff as the amount of indemnity.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the construction cost of the instant case was KRW 453,200,000 has already been paid in full by the Defendant, and even if the Plaintiff did not subrogated for the construction cost of the instant case, and even if the Plaintiff subrogated for the construction cost of the instant case, the above claim for reimbursement was subject to the statute of limitations for commercial claims, the five

3. The judgment of the court Gap No. 16, and the corporate bank of this court.