1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on December 24, 2010, and the deceased’s heir has D, E, F, Plaintiff, and other designated parties, who are the children of the deceased.

B. The membership pastor G, the representative of the defendant church, is F and the husband and wife.

C. On May 23, 2005, the Deceased withdrawn KRW 500 million (hereinafter “instant KRW 500 million”) from the deposit account in his own name at the monthly branch of the Agricultural Cooperatives, and around that time, G received the said cashier’s check and deposited it into the account of the Incheon Fisheries Cooperatives under the Defendant’s name on May 25, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 12, 13, 26, 31, 35, 36, 44, 53, 54, and 81; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. On May 25, 2005, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) the Defendant church borrowed and did not fully repay KRW 500 million from the Deceased. Accordingly, the Defendant church should reimburse the Plaintiff, the heir of the Deceased, and the remaining designated persons, for convenience, KRW 380 million, which is a part of the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance (each 1/8) and the remaining designated persons, are liable to pay the Plaintiff and the remaining designated persons for the amount of KRW 47.5 million, which is equivalent to the share of inheritance (each 1/8) and its delay damages. 2) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is merely a donation by the Deceased to G and F, and is not a loan to the Defendant church.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). The fact that the representative of the Defendant church deposited KRW 500 million received from the deceased in the deposit account in the name of the Defendant church is as seen earlier, and as seen earlier, the fact that the representative of the Defendant church deposited the instant KRW 500 million in the deposit account in the name of the Defendant church.