As to the above KRW 12 million, the Plaintiff donated to the Defendant on the condition that the marriage report with the Defendant was made or the de facto marriage was maintained normally for a considerable period of time. Since the marriage report was not made even after the fact that the de facto marriage relationship with the Defendant was not completed, the Defendant should return the said money to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on the claim for loans on March 11, 2015

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 3, it is also acknowledged that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant on March 11, 2015, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on October 25, 2015, on or around March 19, 2016, around five months after the Plaintiff’s marriage was entered into and entered into de facto marriage relations with the Plaintiff’s parents, the Plaintiff, as well as the Defendant, on March 19, 2016, had the Plaintiff promptly repaid the Plaintiff’s loans worth KRW 10 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to refund to the plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 10 million and damages for delay.

B. The defendant asserts that he exempted the above loan debt at the time of the plaintiff's commencement of de facto marital relationship.

It is not sufficient to accept all evidence submitted by the defendant. Rather, the fact that the defendant prepared a statement against the purport that he will promptly repay the above loan obligations on March 19, 2016, when about five months have elapsed since the defendant commenced a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant's mother, in relation to the above loan debt, paid KRW 10 million to the plaintiff plus KRW 10 million.