1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 16, 1995, the Plaintiff was a legally married couple who completed a marriage report with C on February 16, 1995. On April 12, 2017, the Daejeon Family Court rendered a conciliation of divorce with C in cases, such as rice production support 2016ddan893 (principal lawsuit), divorce, etc.

B. The Plaintiff remitted each of the Defendant the remittance amounting to KRW 30 million on November 3, 201, KRW 10 million on November 25, 201, and KRW 70 million on December 7, 201, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 7, Eul 8, 10, 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was remitted to the Defendant and lent KRW 110 million to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff sought the return of the principal and interest of the loan.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion was from around 2006 that the defendant lent money to the plaintiff and C, and the plaintiff only remitted money of KRW 110 million to the defendant as a repayment of part of that money, but not lending the above money to the defendant.

3. Judgment on the issue

A. In a case where a remittance is made by transferring money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes. In order for the remittance to be recognized as a loan, the fact that the money was paid under a loan for consumption must be proved, and the burden of proof therefor shall be borne by the plaintiff who asserts it.

B. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone proves that the Plaintiff lent KRW 110 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was proven that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

① From November 3, 2011 to December 7, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant KRW 110 million on three occasions, and at the time of the transfer, either the loan certificate or the letter.