1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the father of the defendant.

B. From February 4, 2005 to September 6, 2008, the Plaintiff, as indicated in the attached list, remitted the sum of KRW 32 million to the financial account under the Defendant’s name, each of which exceeds 32 million (hereinafter “instant payment”).

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 (including a Gazy number)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (limited to the part related to the claim of this case) that the payment of this case was made to the Defendant, and the money that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant is necessary to only construct an apartment in order to have the Defendant remarried.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the above amount of money and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s former wife and the Defendant’s mother’s mother, and only received money from the Plaintiff as part of the living cost payment for C, which was living separately living with the Plaintiff at the time, and delivered it to C. Thus, it is not the money paid to the Defendant.

Even if such can not be seen, it should be viewed as a donated money, not a loan.

3. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the instant payment was paid to C via the Defendant.

The fact that the payment of this case was remitted to the defendant was shown in the above basic facts, and the defendant's position was only the delivery of the money from the plaintiff to the plaintiff. However, considering the fact that the plaintiff appears to have separately forwarded KRW 1 million per month to C during the same period [each entry in the evidence No. 2 (including the serial number)], it is insufficient to conclude that each entry in the evidence No. 5 and No. 6 alone is the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the above assertion.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. However, even if the instant payment was paid to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant payment was scheduled to return the principal shall be proved.