beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was living together with the Defendant on the premise of marriage from June 2010 to April 2014, the Plaintiff sent all the remainder of the Plaintiff’s income during the period of living together with the Defendant to the Defendant’s account to manage the Defendant’s income by sending the remainder of the Plaintiff’s income, excluding the basic living cost from the Plaintiff’s income during the period of living together with the Defendant, to the Defendant’s account.
However, since the purpose of custody was extinguished due to the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant are not married, the defendant has a duty to return the plaintiff's custody money managed during the period of living to the plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant lived from June 2010 to April 2014, together with an officetel located in Busan City where the Defendant had resided before the Plaintiff’s expulsion with the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff, from August 1, 2010 to February 22, 2014, transferred KRW 162,745,000 in total to the Defendant’s bank account through the Plaintiff’s IBK bank account, and KRW 13,60,000 in total to the Defendant through the Plaintiff’s IBK bank account. The Defendant transferred KRW 53,770,000 in total to the Plaintiff’s IBK bank account, and KRW 22,430,00 in total to the Plaintiff’s IBK bank account.
3) The Defendant paid monthly public charges, such as monthly rent, management fee, Internet user fee, urban gas fee, and telecommunications fee, etc. of officetels residing together with the Plaintiff. 4) The Defendant regularly paid the purchase price of goods with the Defendant’s instant card and our card at a large discount store, such as home flus, home flus, marina, tower, camera, etc.
5 The Plaintiff worked in a lot department store and transferred his/her workplace to a lot department store on August 2010, and the Defendant served in a lot department store. According to the name of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was working in a lot department store and the details of the use of the lot card are settled from the lot department store.