1. The Defendant’s KRW 113,400,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 21, 2018 to April 20, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of C, and the Defendant is the former wife of C who was sentenced to divorce as follows after completing the marriage report on February 20, 1998 with C and two children, raising two children, and maintaining the marriage relationship.

B. On July 20, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C over a claim for divorce, etc. under the Seoul Family Court Decision 2016Ddan321384, and C, as a counterclaim, has 2017.

4. Around 18.17. A lawsuit for divorce, etc. was filed by the above court No. 2017ddan3126777.

On December 7, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment ordering C to pay consolation money of KRW 20,000,000 per child and KRW 600,000 per child. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter “instant divorce lawsuit” (hereinafter referred to as “instant divorce lawsuit”). (In fact that there is no dispute with the grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap’s evidence No. 9, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the allegations by the parties concerned, the Plaintiff managed part of the Plaintiff’s financial assets in the name of the Defendant, and the company run by the Plaintiff’s husband and C, and around November 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract or paid money under the name of the Defendant, which was substituted by the Plaintiff who was a bad credit holder, so that he/she could live in and out of,

1) On September 12, 2014, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on September 12, 2014, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, 102 Dong 504 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

2) As to the lease agreement under which the Defendant is the lessee (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) The Plaintiff entered into a lease contract and paid KRW 450,000,000. The Defendant received the full refund of the lease deposit at the expiration of the lease contract of this case. The amount is not a donation to the Defendant, but because the said money was lent to the Defendant, or the Defendant was unjustly obtained by the Defendant, and thus, the return is sought. (2) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s trade name, “F”, which was opened on August 29, 2015 and opened on September 29, 2015.