1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. C, the spouse of the Plaintiff’s assertion, who is the spouse of the Plaintiff, has maintained a Buddhist relationship with the Defendant, and extended a total of KRW 203,50,000 to the Defendant over forty seven occasions from August 20, 2012 to January 28, 2016.

On September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to receive 300,000,000 won as damages from C (the substance of the agreement is the division of property and consolation money following the divorce), and received the above loan claim that C has against the Defendant for the repayment of the said damages, and C notified the Defendant of the above transfer of claim on November 8, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above 203,50,000 won with the transfer money and the damages for delay calculated by the rate prescribed by the Civil Act or the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 29, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the last lease.

2. We examine the determination on the cause of the claim. According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6, which correspond to the plaintiff's argument, it is difficult to believe that each statement of evidence Nos. 7-1 through 3 is stated, and Eul remitted a total of KRW 187,50,000 to the defendant 44 times from August 20, 2012 to January 28, 2016 (the plaintiff's title Nos. 4 (10,000,000 among the marks indicated in the preparatory documents as of October 16, 2018) and Nos. 44 (9, Sept. 16, 2015) (the amount of KRW 4,00,000) and 46 (the amount of KRW 10,500,000) were remitted to the defendant 30,000,000,000).

It is difficult to readily conclude that a loan of KRW 203,50,000 has been granted in excess of or in excess of the foregoing as alleged therein, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since the existence of a loan claim against the Defendant, which is the premise of the Plaintiff’s assertion, is not recognized.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff.