1. The Defendant’s KRW 500,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 15, 2016 to September 20, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are married couple around May 2012, and the Plaintiff is currently pending in the litigation by filing a marriage revocation lawsuit, etc. against the Defendant around May 2016.

Seoul Family Court (2016Dhap35987).

On November 30, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 500 million (hereinafter “instant remittance amount”) to a bank account under the Defendant’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 4 evidence (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. In regard to the assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant remittance was lent to the Defendant’s two copies of the transfer money for the purpose of certifying the balance of the bank account for the establishment of a language education business, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was transferred the money from the investment money upon the Plaintiff’s operation of the language education business as a partnership business.

B. Determination 1) If the purport of the entire argument is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, 10, and 11, the plaintiff expressed the details as "for balance" when the plaintiff sent the remittance amount of this case to the defendant. On December 15, 2015, the defendant requested the return of the remittance amount of this case from the plaintiff via the plaintiff and the plaintiff using the above Kakakakao Kakao Messen, which "the remittance amount of this case was borrowed for a certificate of balance in the bank account and must be returned to the plaintiff," and it is recognized that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff about the time of return of the remittance amount of this case. According to the above facts of recognition, it is recognized that the remittance amount of this case was a money that the plaintiff lent to the defendant without fixing the time limit for repayment, and it is insufficient to reverse this merely on the basis of each statement in Eul evidence No. 1 through 3.

3. Therefore, from January 15, 2016, the Defendant’s loan amounting to KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s loan amounting to KRW 500 million after the reasonable period from the date on which the above return was demanded.