1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant foundation B and the defendant's conjunctive claim against the defendants.

Basic Facts

E in Suwon-si is a temple belonging to Defendant Incorporated Foundation B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”).

The F (Legal Name G) was widely known as well as the second Changju, and died on January 15, 2012.

The plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with F, and H and I had son between F.

Defendant C (Law Name J) was appointed as the chief minister of E on June 19, 2006, and succeeded to the third Changju of E on June 27, 2006.

On July 18, 2006, the Plaintiff had H deposit KRW 530,000 in the account under the name of E company.

On the other hand, on September 1, 2006, the registration of transfer of ownership (No. 151767) was completed on November 2, 2006 by the Suwon District Court in the name of M on the grounds of sale on September 1, 2006 with respect to the area of 11,511 square meters (L-dong land) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was owned by F.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the main claim against the defendant Eul, and the defendant C, who succeeded to the original owner, agreed on July 18, 2006, on behalf of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff for the repair of Eul, to repay the land as the selling price of the land. The transfer of ownership was completed under another person's name on November 2, 2006. Thus, the defendant B, to whom Eul belongs, is liable to pay the plaintiff the above loan Nos. 530,000,000 and damages for delay accrued from the day following the date of the registration of transfer of ownership of Ldong land to the day of complete payment.

Judgment

Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money has been received, if the defendant contests against the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proving that the lending was made.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff No. 1, i.e., the document, as indicated above.