1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. 사안의 개요 [사실인정의 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 을 6∽8호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지 (1) 원고와 피고는 2014. 11.경부터 사실상 부부로서 생활하여 왔는데, 2017. 1. 29.경 서로 다툰 후 피고가 집을 나가 별거하였다.

From December 22, 2017, a judgment was rendered to the effect that “the plaintiff shall pay 28,420,776 won to the defendant as division of property” from the case of consolation money and division of property [this Court Decision 2017ddan32924, 2017ddan34760 (Counterclaim)] due to the destruction of de facto marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, and the appellate court (Usu District Court Decision 2018Reu263) continues to exist.

(2) On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted as follows, and applied for a payment order against the Defendant under this Court No. 2017 tea752.

② In applying for the above payment order, the Plaintiff stated the Defendant’s address as “Yansan-si C, 301”.

③ On March 20, 2017, the foregoing court issued a payment order on March 20, 2017, and the Plaintiff received it as the Defendant’s spouse by being served on March 24, 2017 as the [Supplementary Notes C, 301] at Ansan-si.

B) Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: KRW 3 million and KRW 1,565,700, among the claims described in paragraph (2) above, are loans lent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and the remainder of KRW 32,202,00 are the deposits that the Plaintiff would return after being kept for the purpose of annuity savings from August 29, 2014 to February 15, 2017.

The defendant is obligated to return the above total amount of 36,767,700 won or the deposited money to the plaintiff.

2. 판 단 ▷민사소송법 제186조에서 동거인이라 함은 송달받을 사람 본인과 같은 세대에 속하여 생계를 같이 하는 사람을 말하고(대법원 2000. 10. 28.자 2000마5732 결정), 본인과 수령대행인 사이에 당해 소송에 관하여 이해의 대립 내지 상반된 이해관계가 있는 때에는 쌍방대리금지의 정신으로 보아 보충송달을 할 수...