1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, from October 26, 201 to November 2, 2011, remitted a total of KRW 88,000,000 to the Defendant, and thereafter, received a refund of KRW 28,00,000 from the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder of KRW 60,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. 8,00,000 won remitted by the Defendant to the Defendant is invested as a fund for the business of a screen golf range operated by the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s husband, and thus, there is no obligation to return it to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s name transferred KRW 28,00,000 to the account under the Defendant’s name on October 26, 201; KRW 28,000,000 on October 28, 201; and KRW 10,000 on November 2, 2011; and the Defendant wired KRW 28,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name on November 12, 201 does not conflict between the parties.

In addition, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7-1, the plaintiff's husband C owned a building Nos. 1, 2, and 7-1, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff's husband C transferred it to the defendant's account upon the plaintiff's request from the plaintiff's husband to D, the title holder of the above loan was changed to D, D was holding only the above loan's name upon the plaintiff's request from the plaintiff's husband, and D transferred it to the defendant's account upon the plaintiff's request from the plaintiff's husband to pay the deposit money to the plaintiff's husband.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances as revealed by Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that KRW 88,00,000 deposited into the defendant's account is not part of the investment amount, but the money lent or left to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

1) The Plaintiff’s husband C and the Defendant are civil cases arising in relation to the screen golf course business that they operated (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Kadan1274 (Main Office).