1. The defendant, to the plaintiff (Appointeds), USD 272,500, US currency 40.40.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2010, the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the Selection C (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are married couples. The Defendant, on January 9, 2010, married with D, his father, but currently is undergoing a divorce lawsuit in the United States.

B. From June 11, 2012 to June 30, 2015, the Defendant completed a dental correction graduate school course in California E University located in California (hereinafter “instant school course”).

C. The Plaintiff: (a) remitted USD 35,00 to the Defendant on December 5, 2011; (b) USD 40,000 on May 29, 2012; (c) USD 15,000 on August 28, 2012; (b) USD 50,000 on November 19, 2012; (c) USD 80,000 on April 24, 2013; (d) USD 30,000 on January 20, 2014; and (e) USD 40,000 on May 22, 2014; and (e) remitted USD 40,000 on May 22, 2014 to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant money,” in total of the aforementioned transfers:

On August 2018, the Plaintiffs urged the Defendant to return the instant money through F, the Plaintiff’s birth.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5 through 7 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that although the defendant agreed to receive school expenses required to complete the course of the instant study in the United States, it was not possible to grant a loan to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, they asserted that the plaintiffs lent the instant money to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant donated the instant money to the defendant in order to assist the defendant, who is the plaintiff, in the U.S. living with his/her father and his/her father, and in the course of the instant study.

B. Judgment 1 Plaintiffs’ instant money.