1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 17, 2015 to July 15, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 7, and Eul evidence 2:

The plaintiff is C's wife, and the defendant is C's children, her mother and her mother and her mother.

B. On December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) established the right to collateral security of KRW 96,000,000 with respect to D Apartment 206, 203, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, owned by the Plaintiff to the Bank; (b) established the right to collateral security of KRW 80,000,000 with respect to D Apartment 203, 206, 12.690 per annum with interest rate of KRW 4.690 per annum; and

C. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant’s new bank account on December 30, 201, while keeping the Plaintiff’s Bank account.

(hereinafter “amount of remittance of this case”). D.

On January 3, 2012, the Defendant used KRW 67,500,000, out of the remittance amount of the instant case as the deposit for the deposit for the lease of a new family.

E. The Defendant remitted KRW 320,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s bank account on February 3, 2012, KRW 320,000 on February 22, 2012, and KRW 350,00 on April 6, 2012, respectively.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s determination on the Plaintiff’s claim (i.e., the aforementioned basic facts and the entire purport of oral arguments; (ii) there is no special circumstance for the Plaintiff to provide real estate to financial institutions as collateral and to obtain a loan of KRW 80,00,000 on December 201; and (iii) KRW 320,000 or KRW 350,000 that the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff, 312,666, which is the amount equivalent to monthly interest on KRW 80,000,00 that the Plaintiff borrowed from the Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. (=80,000 x 4.690 x 4.690% x less than KRW 1/12, and less than KRW 12). In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant remittance amount was loaned to the Defendant after the Defendant’s loan from the Bank of Korea, which was prior to marriage.

dr.