The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lent KRW 350 million to the network E on May 6, 2009. The Plaintiff and C succeeded to each of the above claims as the deceased’s children, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant inherited the above claims in their respective 1/2 shares. The Plaintiff and the Defendant succeeded to the Plaintiff’s 3/5 shares and the Defendant’s 2/5 shares in the deceased’s spouse and the Defendant’s her own shares, and the Plaintiff and C agreed to the Plaintiff to inherit the above claims independently. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 140 million (= KRW 350 million x 2/5), which corresponds to the inheritance shares of the above obligations.

B. The facts that the judgment network D remitted KRW 350 million to the network E on May 6, 2009 are as shown in the above facts of recognition, but even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the amount of money is available, when the defendant raises an objection against the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the lending was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). In light of the following circumstances revealed in addition to the evidence as mentioned above and the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence No. 9, it is insufficient to recognize that the network D lent KRW 350,000 to the network E even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs was presented, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① The Plaintiff asserted that the network D lent KRW 350 million to the network E on May 6, 2009, but there was no document of disposition, such as a loan certificate, etc. related thereto (On the other hand, the network D prepared a lease contract with the network as of October 15, 2012, in which the lease deposit was KRW 200 million with respect to the housing on the land of Gangseo-gu Busan Gangseo-gu, Busan as of October 15, 2012), and the network E.