1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The plaintiff and the defendant were in a de facto marital relationship from August 2010 to May 2014.

On May 31, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded that there was a lack of purchase price in purchasing construction machinery listed in the separate sheet at G agency’s G agency’s purchase (hereinafter “the instant excavation search machine”). On May 31, 201, the Defendant remitted KRW 20,000,000, which is part of the price, to the account in the name of D operating the said agency.

On June 2, 2011, the Plaintiff created a mortgage of KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “the mortgage of this case”) to the Defendant on June 2, 2011 at the office of registration of the following city vehicles, which was received on June 2, 2011.

When the de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff was terminated, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s mother F and the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan under Jeonju District Court 2015Kahap10648.

The Defendant asserted, through the foregoing lawsuit, that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff, KRW 3 million on April 2, 2012, KRW 3 million on December 3, 2012, KRW 18.2 million on January 23, 2013, KRW 46.2 million on February 12, 2013, and KRW 4.6.2 million on February 12, 2013, the court dismissed the Defendant’s claim for loans against the Plaintiff on the ground that it is insufficient to deem that the amount the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff was paid under the pretext of the loan, and F borrowed KRW 73,550,389 from the Defendant on February 28, 2013, and thus, the judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “prior judgment”).

【In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), the inquiry result of the court of the first instance on the registration office of the Gulsan vehicle at the court of the first instance, the plaintiff's assertion to the purport of the whole pleading

A. On May 31, 201, the Defendant’s payment of part of the price for the so-called digging machines of this case was not lent to the Plaintiff, but paid to each of them as a couple forming a common living relationship, and thus, paid to the Plaintiff.