1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's preliminary claim added at the trial, the defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1. The court's explanation of the judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim in this case is identical to the reasons for the judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim in this case. Thus, the court's determination is based on the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court below's determination on the conjunctive claim added in the trial.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective entries and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers) as to the conjunctive claim, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was the plaintiff's loan to the defendant, who actually withdrawn from the passbook in the name of Dong-in E and paid 95 million won to the defendant on Dec. 2, 2007. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above loan to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and D had a marital relationship between around 10 years before they married on November 24, 200 and divorced on June 30, 201. However, according to the details of the monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and D, D transferred approximately KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff during the period from November 2002 to December 2009. The Defendant asserted that D was in custody of the said money through the Plaintiff, and that D was actually in fact a money. However, if D was in custody of the money, it would only be placed at the passbook under the name of the Plaintiff, and there is no reason to transfer this money to the Plaintiff. Considering that D was a relatively periodically transferred money from D during the seven-year period, the Plaintiff and D had no evidence to acknowledge that D transferred the money to the Plaintiff for the above three-year period to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, 9.