1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,240,350 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 25, 2014 to January 22, 2015, and the following.

Basic Facts

The defendant is the representative director of C&S and a person who engages in L/S export business of L/S.

The Plaintiff’s account under the Defendant’s name or C’s name; KRW 2 million on April 24, 2012; KRW 60 million on April 27, 2012; KRW 10 million on April 30, 201; and the same year.

5.2.2.2 million won, and the same month;

7. Five million won, and the same month; and

8. 5 million won, 16.5 million won for the same month, 25.4.8 million won for the same month, and 1.2 million won for the same year; and

6. 1.5 million won, 14.1.5 million won for the same month, 1.5 million won for the 19.169 million won for the 19.169 million won for the same year, and 1.1 million won for the 25.5 million won for the same month, and the same year; and

7.1 November 4, 190 2,000 won, and the same year.

8. 23.308,450 won, the same year;

9. 11.40,00 won, 12.2 million won for the same month, 2.2 million won for the same month, 14.2 million won for the same month, and 12.70,000 won for the same month, remitted a total of 11,306,000 won.

In addition, the plaintiff paid 6150,900 won to C's goods payment obligation.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff should pay KRW 110,220,350,00,000,000,000 for the above remittance plus KRW 11,306,00 for the above remittance to KRW 450,00 for the above remittance to KRW 6150,00 for the substitute payment to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant money”). Inasmuch as there is no dispute about the grounds for recognition, each entry of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff KRW

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff was promised to marry with the plaintiff, and that the amount of this case was only a donation to the defendant that the plaintiff would use it as a malicious business cost and cost of living, and that it is not a money borrowed by the defendant.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the money of this case after November 2012, and the defendant issued to the plaintiff a written statement of partial receipt of the money of this case as "B borrowed money" with the title "B borrowed money", and the defendant also paid part of the money of this case to the plaintiff.