1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,1950,00 and as to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum from September 11, 2015 to September 12, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C A. The deceased on September 7, 2015 (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the inheritor are children, and the Defendant is a person in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased from around 2000.

B. On September 10, 2015, the Defendant sold to D 19 cattles located in the livestock shed located in Jeon-nam-gun E (hereinafter “instant livestock”) for KRW 23.9 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s livestock is the deceased’s ownership, and the Defendant sold them at will even though their ownership was inherited to the Plaintiff, and thus, the amount equivalent to the purchase price should be returned as unjust enrichment. 2) The Defendant’s livestock is the ownership of the Defendant or the deceased and the Defendant’s public property, and even if not, the Defendant’s repayment of the Defendant’s loan with the purchase price is a lawful act in accordance with the joint and several liability of the married couple’s daily household liability.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant alone does not clarify whether the ownership of the livestock of this case is the deceased or the Defendant, so it is reasonable to deem that the livestock of this case is the public property of the Defendant in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased, and its share is not clear. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased and the Defendant own one half shares

Therefore, since the Defendant’s sales of the instant livestock after the death of the Deceased, KRW 1,1950,000,000,000,000, which exceeded one half of his own shares, is the money to be received by the Plaintiff, who is the inheritor of the Deceased, the amount must be returned to the Plaintiff

The evidence presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the amount borrowed by the defendant is for daily living, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.