1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff completed the marriage report on March 6, 2002 with the defendant's leakage or C and the plaintiff.

B. At around February 2013, C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for divorce, etc. with the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branching 2013Ddan525, but, on February 11, 2015, C appealed upon a judgment dismissing the claim, but was sentenced to a judgment dismissing the appeal on August 13, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

C. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for loans of KRW 30 million (U.S. District Court 2013dan6843). On September 30, 2013, the said court entered into an adjustment with the payment of KRW 15 million to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff fully repaid the amount to the Defendant.

On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for divorce and the claim for consolation money with the Suwon District Court’s Branch Branch Branch Decision 2016ddan5064, and on April 13, 2016, the Plaintiff confirmed a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “the Plaintiff and C are divorced. The Plaintiff shall pay C the consolation money and the division of property, which is KRW 10 million, to C, on March 17, 2016.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, from January 18, 2008 to January 10, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37,372,00 (= KRW 54,162,00 - KRW 16,790,00) and damages for delay, since the Plaintiff lent KRW 54,162,00 to the Defendant and received KRW 16,790,00 from the Defendant.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff could not assert any assertion against the circumstances of the loan and the cause of the loan, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant only with the entries of the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 (including the number of pages). The Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the conjunctive cause of claim shall be based on January 2008.