1. The claims of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The grounds for the claim are between the plaintiff, the designated parties, and the defendant's relatives and relatives by marriage.

Since 1996, if the defendant loaned the defendant's children's school expenses and living expenses to the plaintiff and the selected persons in around 2003, it would be paid at the latest by the end of 2006.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the designated parties have lent to the Defendant the amount indicated in the “amount sent (US$)” column on the date indicated below.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the following amounts to the Plaintiff and the designated parties for delay from January 1, 2007, respectively, by applying the said US dollars at the base exchange rate ($ 1,128 per US$1 per US$1) on March 11, 2015, which is similar to the date of closing the argument in this case, converted into Korean currency.

The judgment of December 2, 2000 US dollars 10,280,000 US dollars 10,280,000 on December 2, 2004 19,450 21,939,600 on May 22, 2003, 200 the amount of remittance (US$ 10,000 11,280,280,000 on May 6, 2003 8, 1169,154,848 hereinafter referred to as "amount of remittance of this case") claimed by the Plaintiff/Appointed (US$ 169,154,848, Jun. 12, 2003)

A. In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff and the designated parties remitted each of the transfers of this case to the defendant on the date of remittance, and the fact that the plaintiff and the designated parties keep their seal imprint and resident registration certificates.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant was paid each remittance of this case under the pretext of distribution of inherited property, donation, etc. after his mother died, but there is no evidence to clearly recognize that each remittance was the cause of distribution of inherited property or donation.

B. However, the burden of proving that each of the transfers in this case is a loan shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and there is no dispute with the Plaintiff, and the evidence Nos. 8, 10, and Eul Nos. 1 and 2 shall be written.