1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant should pay the money stated in the purport of the claim because he borrowed money from the plaintiff's husband C to the plaintiff and paid the money in lieu of the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the above payment angle was made to C, and that it was no way to the plaintiff.

2. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and Nos. 1-1 through 4 of the plate A, the Defendant’s payment note to the effect that “140,000,000 won out of the 140,000,000 won shall be paid until June 30, 2013, and the remainder KRW 10,000,000 shall be paid after consultation,” is referred to as “the instant payment note.”

A. The facts that C made and made a contract, and C received KRW 11,940,00 from the Defendant, out of the agreed amount under the instant payment note, and C, upon the Defendant’s claim, shall be deemed to have paid KRW 140,00,000 to the Defendant in the Seoul High Court case No. 2016Na894, Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na894, it is reasonable to deem C to have knowingly lent money for gambling, and C also lent money as illegal consideration as prescribed in Article 746 of the Civil Act. Therefore, it is recognized that the fact that C has been invalidated due to

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case under the plaintiff's written rejection of payment is dismissed as without merit.