1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,587,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 18, 2016 to May 31, 2017.

1. Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in subparagraphs A through 4 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 36,587,000 to the Defendant’s name or the account designated by the Defendant, KRW 7 million on February 28, 201, KRW 18 million on March 7, 201, KRW 250,000 on March 10, 201, KRW 5.6 million on March 31, 201, KRW 317,00 on May 16, 201, and KRW 317,00 on September 8, 201, to each of the accounts designated by the Defendant’s husband (hereinafter “the instant money”) may not be recognized as a counter-written evidence.

2. Determination as to loan claims

A. The plaintiff asserted that the money of this case was leased to the defendant at the defendant's request for a loan, and the defendant asserted that the money of this case was donated to the defendant who is a wood company, and that it was donated to the defendant.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff is responsible for proving that this case’s loan is a public health account and this case’s loan.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, it is not sufficient to recognize only the testimony of the witness C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

C. Thus, the ground for the instant claim on the ground that the instant money is a loan cannot be accepted.

3. Judgment on the claim for the defrauded money

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) as the cause of the claim in this case, and around 2011, in the situation where the plaintiff's father and wife D are in need of his residence in Seoul, the plaintiff demanded money from the defendant to pay money to the rental housing expenses (such as the cost of housing preparation or house repair) to provide accommodation in the situation where D is required to register D with the defendant's church, and the defendant's residence in Seoul, and the defendant demanded money from the rental housing expenses (such as the cost of housing preparation or house repair expenses) to provide accommodation. Since the defendant did not prepare a rental housing, he asserts that the defendant is claiming the return of the money obtained by fraud

(2) this.