1. The Defendant’s order for payment issued on October 28, 2015 by Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court Branch of the Plaintiff) No. 201833, Oct. 28, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff, the plaintiff's husband C, and the defendant all live together.

B. Upon C’s request, the Defendant wired KRW 67.5 million in total to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff over several occasions from September 18, 2014 to December 1, 2014.

C. Around October 2015, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking the payment of the loan under the Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 2015 tea1833 on the ground that the Plaintiff lent KRW 67.5 million to the Plaintiff.

On October 28, 2015, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay “the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of full payment.” On October 29, 2015, the above payment order became final and conclusive on November 13, 2015 because the Plaintiff was served with the above payment order and did not raise any objection thereto.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant payment order”). 【The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of all pleadings】

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Defendant wired KRW 67.5 million to the Plaintiff’s account in the course of delivering business funds to operate a waste business with C, D, and E. The Defendant did not lend the said funds to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant did not have concluded an investment contract with C, etc., and lent KRW 67.5 million to the Plaintiff.

Since the Plaintiff used money received from the Defendant as a cost of living, it is liable to pay KRW 67.5 million to the Defendant.

B. The burden of proving the existence or establishment of the claim is against the obligee in the lawsuit of demurrer to judgment, that is, the Defendant in the lawsuit of demurrer to claim.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the Defendant loaned the amount of damages, including interest, to C by May 2015, to the Defendant that C would compensate for the damages incurred by investing in the waste business. However, the amount received as interest.