1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and his wife D (hereinafter “the deceased”) had his wife D (hereinafter “the deceased”) F, South and North E, Defendant B, and ma under the chain, and Defendant C was the wife of Defendant B as the wife of Defendant B.

The defendants are residing in the United States.

B. From March 13, 2014 to the same year, the Plaintiff

4. By the twenty-fourth day, Defendant B remitted the sum of KRW 247,172,384 and KRW 200,000,000 to Defendant C (hereinafter “the instant remittance amount”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 13-1, 14

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion ① Since the money remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendants is a loan, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 450 million and damages for delay.

② Even if Defendant C is not a party to a loan agreement, Defendant C borrowed money necessary for the purchase of a house in the United States, which is an essential cost for maintaining a married couple’s community, and thus, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay that money to the Plaintiff with Defendant C.

③ Even if the Plaintiff donated the instant remittance to the Defendants, the Defendants are obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff, since they expressed their intent to rescind the donation contract upon a claim for the instant loan.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion ① The real estate and deposits in the name of the Plaintiff at the time of the deceased’s death were transferred to the Plaintiff as the property of the deceased. The Plaintiff agreed to distribute the deceased’s property according to the deceased’s will.

The amount of remittance of this case is not a loan that was paid pursuant to the above agreement.

(2) In the first instance court, even if the said money was donated, the Defendants asserted that the money transferred from the Plaintiff was a donation, and then changed the said assertion in this court) and (2).