1. All of the principal claim and counterclaim claim in this case are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 1979, the Plaintiff and the Defendant married with the Defendant and slicked with the deceased (hereinafter “the deceased”). On July 1, 1981, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were divorced, and the Plaintiff brought up the deceased.

B. On June 28, 2006, the Deceased married with Nonparty D, and around July 24, 2012, D murdered the Deceased and committed suicide on the same day.

C. On December 14, 2012, the Defendant received a decision from the Seoul Family Court on the qualified acceptance of the deceased.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 5 through 7’s statement, the Plaintiff’s entire purport of the argument is as follows: (a) on Nov. 14, 2005, KRW 400,000, Jan. 14, 2006; and (b) on the same year, the Plaintiff’s account as the deceased’s account.

3. 24.5,000,000 won, and the same year.

8. 50,000 won on May 20, 2000, and December 20, 200,000 won on December 3, 2007, and the same year; and

4. It is recognized that the remittance of KRW 3,00,000 for the 13.3.00,000 for the 10.2.1,00,000 for the same year, and KRW 11,713,100 for the 11.6.13.6. 18. 208, and KRW 9,000 for the 18. 200.

The plaintiff asserts that from November 14, 2005 to March 18, 2008, the deceased lent a total of KRW 55,913,100 to the deceased without fixing the interest and the due date for repayment from November 18, 2008. The plaintiff asserts that within the scope of the property inherited from the deceased to the defendant who is the inheritor of the deceased, the deceased claimed for the payment of KRW 27,956,550, and damages for delay equivalent to the defendant's share in the inherited property

B. The mere fact that a transfer was made based on various causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, a repayment, and a simple delivery, and the mere fact that there was a remittance cannot be readily concluded that there was an intention of a party to a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there was a receipt of money between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was received as a loan for consumption.