1. The Defendant’s annual period from October 14, 2014 to October 26, 2016, as to KRW 39,729,178 and KRW 34,806,968 among the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, 1973 and the five-year teaching system, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant were fested from around 197 to around 2012.

B. The Plaintiff remitted or delivered to the Defendant the total sum of KRW 60 million, KRW 10 million on August 3, 2009, KRW 10 million on August 24, 2009, KRW 500,000 on October 21, 2009, KRW 500,000 on October 28, 2009, KRW 5500,000 on October 28, 2009, and KRW 61 million on January 14, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

A. From August 3, 2009 to January 14, 201, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 61 million to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 61 million and the interest and delay damages thereon.

B. Since 1973, the Defendant was pregnant of the Plaintiff’s child during his teaching system, but the Plaintiff was still married at the time, and thus, was forced to abortion.

After that, while the Plaintiff and the Defendant re-entered the teaching system from around 1997, the Plaintiff donated the above KRW 61 million to the Defendant with an indication of f1 million as to the fact that the Defendant was born due to his mistake in the past.

3. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there is the number of money between the parties to the relevant legal principles, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receipt is a loan for consumption, and if the defendant asserts that the money was received due to a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the money was received due to

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). In addition, whether the act of payment of money unilaterally continued to the same other party constitutes a gift should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the relationship between the parties, the total amount of money received, the period and amount of payment, the circumstances surrounding the receipt of money, the attitude and circumstances of the parties before and after the payment of money, etc.

B. According to each of the statements in Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to KRW 35 million as of January 14, 201, the Plaintiff’s judgment on KRW 35 million as of January 14, 201, respectively.