1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The defendant is the husband of C with no dispute (the fact that there is no dispute).

From November 26, 2012 to October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 126,150,000 to the Defendant’s account (foreign exchange bank D; hereinafter “instant account”) (hereinafter “instant remittance”), KRW 4.5 million to the E account on December 2, 2013, KRW 6,634,302, and KRW 4 million to the LAF account on November 14, 2013, and KRW 7.20,00 to the G account on November 25, 2013.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant's assertion;

A. On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to lend money to the Defendant’s and C husband and wife (hereinafter “Defendant’s husband and wife”) by offering real estate under the name of the Defendant as collateral. The Defendant decided to lend the said money without any collateral, and then, remitted KRW 142,04,302 in total from the above basic facts.

In the first place, the Defendant is liable to return the above loan to the Plaintiff with joint and several responsibility for the borrower’s own responsibility or the daily premium, and the Defendant received the above money from the instant account without any conjunctive cause, and thus, is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The plaintiff loaned the above money to the defendant C upon the request of the business fund of the defendant C, so there is no relationship with the defendant.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the primary claim 1) The fact that there was a lending contract between the Plaintiff and C does not conflict between the parties (hereinafter “instant lending contract”).

2) As to whether the Plaintiff entered into a loan contract with the Defendant as well as C, it is insufficient to recognize the fact of direct loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant solely based on the fact that the instant remittance was made, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the Defendant is the opposite party to the Plaintiff’s lease.

3. Next, the Defendant, who is the husband of C, is also the above lending, since the instant lending for daily home life.