1. From March 11, 2017 to November 8, 2017, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against such KRW.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are in a de facto marital relationship between May 2012 and August 2015 and live together.

B. On July 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a golf-related retail contract with C Co., Ltd., and leased a store located in Daegu Suwon-gu E in order to operate D stores.

C. Around January 2014, the Plaintiff, who was living with the Defendant, transferred the D sales business to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant provided to the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd as security for the agency's contractual debt amounting to KRW 120 million and acquired the plaintiff's contractual status, and the plaintiff leased the same store as security deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, which is the sum of KRW 25 million, and operated the D store, the revenue has been raised by the plaintiff.

On May 31, 2016, after the de facto marriage relation with the defendant was reversed, the plaintiff entered into a contract to re-transfer D sales amounting to KRW 15 million from the defendant, taking into account the fact that sales have increased during the defendant's management period.

Accordingly, the defendant delivered the above store and the sales goods to the plaintiff, and performed the business transfer by transferring the title of agency contract in the name of the plaintiff's father F. However, the plaintiff did not pay the transfer price to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserted that KRW 25 million was a loan to the Defendant and sought the return thereof as the principal lawsuit, among the lease deposits for D stores he/she was born.

(2) However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff entered into a lending contract with the Defendant solely on the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 20, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the plaintiff and the defendant were in de facto marital relationship, and the defendant raised the common living cost with the operating income of the store.