The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The basic facts pertaining to the issue - [Grounds for Recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1, 4, and 6 are the mother of C, and the defendant was divorced pursuant to the final and conclusive judgment (the main claim), February 1, 2019, and Supreme Court Decision 201Meu15091, and Supreme Court Decision 2018Meu15091) after the marriage report was completed on January 23, 2013.

The purchase and sale of the apartment in this case and the defendant purchased D apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the name of the plaintiff on November 18, 2012 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff, by purchasing D apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the name of 492 million won.

C and the Defendant sold the instant apartment to F for KRW 556 million on January 9, 2016, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to F on April 7, 2016.

(B) The facts stated in Paragraph (b) above are based on the reasoning of the judgment rendered by the Suwon Family Court 2017Reuuu90 (principal lawsuit), and 1009 (Counterclaim). The Plaintiff received the payment of the purchase price from F and received from the Defendant, and KRW 1.50,000,000 from the Defendant on January 12, 2016; ② the same year.

3.3.150 million won is remitted and ③ the remainder was paid as a check.

After the disposal of the instant apartment, the Defendant, including the Defendant’s lease agreement, leased G Apartment H on February 20, 2016, and paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 400 million as the purchase price for the instant apartment that was received from the Plaintiff, as in the preceding paragraph.

Furthermore, around that time, the Defendant acquired the right to sell I Apartment J-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho, G-ho

The allegations by the parties and the plaintiff asserted that at the time of purchase of the apartment of this case, the plaintiff lent KRW 300 million to ASEAN, and the defendant should return the above money, since the plaintiff sold the apartment of this case in accordance with the defendant's proposal and lent KRW 156 million, excluding KRW 400 million, after selling the apartment of this case, to the defendant.

Judgment

The evidence supporting the plaintiff's assertion is located at the sales contract and at the bottom of No. 3.