1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and C reported the marriage on February 3, 198 and consulted on December 6, 1993, and among them, the Plaintiff (D birth), E (F birth), and net G (H birth; hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. Around 1988, the Defendant had been living separately with C, the Plaintiff, E, and the Deceased until now.

C. On July 7, 2014, the Deceased died due to a traffic accident.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number)

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion from around 2005 to the deceased’s death, the sum of KRW 3,740,000 to the deceased or a third party designated by the deceased’s, the amount of the payment for embezzlement, KRW 547,960 to the mobile phone price in arrears, KRW 547,960 to the money paid in lieu of the deceased’s obligation, and KRW 62,091,758 to the money paid in lieu of the deceased’s obligation, insurance premium, etc.

As such, the Plaintiff spent various expenses on behalf of the Deceased on behalf of the Defendant and C, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 33,189,859, equivalent to half of the above 66,379,718 won to the Plaintiff in accordance with the business management doctrine.

3. In order to establish the judgment management, it is required that, first of all, the office work is another person's business and there is an intention to vest the actual benefit of management in another person, i.e., the actual benefit of management, and further, it is not clear that the process of such office work is disadvantageous to the principal

Here, “Proceedings to handle affairs for another person” can be jointly and severally against the will of the manager for his/her own interest, and there is no need to externally indicate it, and there is no need to determine it at the time of managing the affairs

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da30882, Aug. 22, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and the entire purport of the pleading, namely, the Defendant, from around 1988 to around C, the Plaintiff, E, and the Defendant.