1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant and the Plaintiff’s supplementary intervenor are currently pending a divorce lawsuit (which is currently pending in the case of a couple’s family court’s female branch court’s female branch court’s female branch court’s female branch court’s female branch court’s female branch court’s female branch court’s female branch court

B. On March 3, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 20 million to the Defendant by remitting KRW 10 million to the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff’s bank account, and KRW 10 million from the deposit account in the name of his/her fatherD to each Defendant’s name (hereinafter “the instant money”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul No. 1 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Plaintiff believed that the marital relationship between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor continued, and lent the instant money to the Defendant. Since the marital relationship between the two parties has broken down, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 20 million and damages for delay. 2) At first, the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant for recovery of the relationship between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant, and for the operation of the Defendant’s beauty room, etc., the Plaintiff was ultimately subject to a divorce lawsuit. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant are ultimately subject to a divorce lawsuit, and the Defendant used the said money for any other purpose, the loan agreement between the

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 20 million and damages for delay.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid the instant money to the Defendant is recognized as above.

However, even if the fact that money was received between the parties is recognized, the fact that the said money was a loan under a monetary loan agreement ought to be proved by the Plaintiff who asserts such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014; 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015); the foregoing evidence and the statement as indicated in subparagraph 3.