1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff and the Defendant were in de facto marital relationship from August 2010 to May 2014.

While maintaining the above de facto marital relationship, the Plaintiff intended to purchase the instant excavation machine, and the Plaintiff stated that the purchase price is insufficient to the Defendant in the process.

Accordingly, on May 31, 201, the Defendant paid KRW 20,000,00 to D sales of the instant excavation machine to the Plaintiff, thereby paying a part of the price for the instant excavation machine.

Accordingly, on June 2, 2011, the Plaintiff created a mortgage (the claim value of KRW 50,000,000) in the name of the defendant, as stated in the purport of the claim.

The registration of the establishment of the above mortgage is registered by E requested by the plaintiff.

E is a business employee who assist the Plaintiff in purchasing the cater of this case.

When the de facto marital relationship between the Plaintiff was terminated, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against F and the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan (the Jeonju District Court 2015Kahap10648).

On August 27, 2015, by recognizing that the Defendant lent KRW 73,550,389 to F on February 28, 2013, the said court sentenced F to the Plaintiff to pay the said loans and damages for delay.

On the other hand, the Defendant, through the above lawsuit, loaned the Plaintiff a total of KRW 5 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 46.2 million on the ground that the Defendant’s repayment of the loan was also sought against the Plaintiff, but the said court dismissed the Defendant’s claim for the Defendant’s loan against the Plaintiff on the ground that it is insufficient to view that the amount the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff was paid as a loan.

The above judgment (hereinafter “the preceding judgment”) became final and conclusive as it is.

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-2, and the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding on the registration office of the Doksan-si vehicle in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings is shown.