1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the husband of the plaintiff's father C who is the plaintiff's husband.

B. On July 16, 2014, the Defendant purchased the instant factory site D (hereinafter “instant factory site”) from E, the former owner, in order to use the factory site as the factory site, in KRW 200 million, and C remitted KRW 20,000 to E on the same day.

On the other hand, the plaintiff transferred 10,000,000 won to C on the same day.

C. Around July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70,000,000 from a new bank, and transferred KRW 40,000 to C on September 22, 2014.

C From August 20, 2014 to January 20, 2015, from August 20, 2014, C paid interest on the Plaintiff’s above loans for six months.

On October 10, 2014, the Defendant offered the instant factory site to the Industrial Bank of Korea as security and paid KRW 150,000,000 to E as sales balance.

C transferred 30,000,000 won to E on the same day, and disbursed 9,925,900 won and 9,000,000 won as introduction fees.

E completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above factory site to the defendant on the same day.

E. After that, C’s relationship with the Defendant aggravated, and C filed a divorce lawsuit against the Defendant on April 24, 2015, and the Defendant also filed a counterclaim and the lawsuit for divorce is pending between the two Incheon Family Court and the Incheon Family Court.

The Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order on May 3, 2016, for which the said divorce lawsuit is pending, but the Defendant raised an objection and implemented the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] 1-5, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 200

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, a fraud, lent money to the Defendant because the purchase fund of the instant factory site is insufficient, and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50,000,000, out of the money loaned from the new bank, to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant bears interest on the loan.

However, the defendant has interest on the above loan from March 2015.