1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the incidental costs of appeal.

Facts of recognition

A. On June 11, 2013, the Defendant transferred KRW 120 million to D, who is the Plaintiff’s son, to the Plaintiff. At the time, the Defendant was in the course of teaching E, who is the Plaintiff’s son.

B. Around March 9, 2014, the Defendant was living together with E and maintained a de facto marriage relationship without reporting marriage from that time.

C. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 90 million to the Defendant. The Defendant used the said KRW 90 million as a lease deposit for the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3 and 706 Dong 909, and moved to the said KRW C apartment as well as E.

D. On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 4 million to the Defendant.

E. On November 11, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages against E on a de facto marriage (Seoul Family Court Decision 2014ddan67488), and the said lawsuit is still pending.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim amounting to KRW 90 million, which the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant on August 25, 2014, is a loan lent to the Defendant as the above C apartment lease deposit. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim amounting to KRW 90 million, which was written in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff remitted the above KRW 90 million to the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s subrogation for part of the obligation to return the loan to the Defendant amounting to KRW 120 million against the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff’s child. If the subrogation is not recognized, it should be viewed that the Defendant and E have donated the said KRW 90 million to the Defendant as the fund for the transfer of the new marriage.

Judgment

As to whether the Plaintiff remitted the above KRW 90 million to the Defendant, or whether it constitutes a lending or subrogation or donation, the Health Council acknowledged earlier and the argument of this case as follows: (i) the Defendant stated in the complaint to the effect that the Defendant was the money borrowed from the wife as to the above KRW 90 million, while filing a claim for damages against E due to a de facto de facto marriage destruction (Evidence 10), and (ii) the Defendant remitted KRW 120 million to D, who is the Plaintiff’s children, at the wife.