1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

There was money transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as indicated below.

On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff 110,000, Defendant 110,000, Defendant’s repayment of loans, etc. on April 23, 2017, Defendant 78,000, Plaintiff 76,000 Defendant’s automobile purchase funds on July 12, 2017, Defendant 2,105,000, the summary of Plaintiff 2,105,000 asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the Defendant’s automobile purchase funds on July 13, 2017 was all loans, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the Plaintiff’s automobile registration fees on July 13, 2017 is that the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant was partially repaid, and thus, the amount that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff ought to be paid KRW 110,105,00

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff and the defendant have donated money or purchased cars for the purpose of maintaining the relationship with the plaintiff whenever they want to terminate the relationship with the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that KRW 78 million paid to the Plaintiff was only a inevitable return upon the Plaintiff’s intimidation, such as “the Defendant’s husband would know about the fact that the Defendant’s husband would not have been aware of the fact.”

Judgment

In light of the various circumstances in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant seem to have entered into an inhuman relationship, and the text messages received during the process, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the said money was a loan solely on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant returned KRW 78 million to the Plaintiff, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the said money was a loan.

The plaintiff asserts that on September 1, 2017, the plaintiff agreed to return the money received by the plaintiff by means of a text message called "the summary of sending the account number" after receiving a request from the plaintiff on September 1, 2017.

Judgment

However, it is unreasonable to recognize that the above text message sent was a conclusive expression of intent to pay money, and otherwise, the defendant is the defendant.