1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the counterclaim shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Since having become aware of the counterclaim Defendant on the Internet car page in the middle of 2011, the counterclaim Defendant came to fall with the counterclaim Defendant at the place of business or the place of business of the counterclaim Defendant, and became close to the husband C of the counterclaim Defendant and the counterclaim Defendant.

B. Among them, around February 2, 2013, the Lessee took physical contacts, such as the Lessee’s clothes off from the Lessee, while drinking alcohol at the house and drinking, and C went to the mutual influence in the Ycheon-gu, Busan. In other words, C was under the influence of alcohol.

C. On September 2013, the counterclaim Defendant was working as a fire with C, and was living separately from C, and filed an application for divorce with the court at the beginning of December 2013.

On February 2014, the counterclaim Defendant was against the counterclaim.

On July 8, 2015, the Daegu Family Court rendered a judgment of 2014ddan104119 to order the counterclaim Defendant to pay 3 million won and delay damages for the mental suffering suffered by the counterclaim Defendant due to the act of the counterclaim. On July 8, 2015, the Daegu Family Court rendered a judgment of 2014ddan1019 to order the counterclaim Defendant to pay 3 million won and delay damages.

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry No. 1 of Eul and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion of the Counterclaim Plaintiff

A. Around March 18, 2013, a counterclaim Defendant lent the credit card of the counterclaim Plaintiff to purchase household products worth KRW 900,000,000.

In addition, on July 5, 2013, the Counterclaim Plaintiff lent the credit card of the Counterclaim Defendant to the her husband C, and (1) C leased the Counterclaim Defendant’s credit card to purchase a heavy vehicle worth KRW 1.7 million. (2) C loaned KRW 2 million on December 13, 2013, because it is necessary to pay the amount to the Counterclaim Defendant’s moving route, and (3) it is necessary to prevent the entry of compulsory execution due to delayed payment of the interest on the mortgage loan amount of KRW 440 million on January 4, 2014, and KRW 2 million on January 24, 2014.

Therefore, the counterclaim defendant is therefore.