1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 3, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. On April 27, 199, the Defendant married with C on April 27, 199, but divorced on October 12, 2015, and the Plaintiff is a child born between C and the former wife.

B. On August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 300 million from the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name to three cashier’s checks and delivered them to the Defendant. On November 5, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million from the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name to the account under the Defendant’s name.

2. The plaintiff asserts that he lent the above KRW 400 million to the defendant.

The defendant asserts that the above KRW 400 million was not a loan, but a donation was made according to the intention of C which was the spouse at the time.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant on August 8, 2014, and KRW 100 million on November 5, 2014, as seen earlier. However, in light of the following circumstances, each of the items of evidence Nos. 6 and 7, which are acknowledged to show the purport of the entire pleadings, is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

① Considering the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in the parent-child relationship at the time of the payment of the said money, but the amount of the money issued is considerable, the document of disposition, such as the receipt of loan, was not prepared, and the interest or the repayment period was not separately determined.

② On October 12, 2015, after the Plaintiff paid KRW 400 million to the Defendant, the agreement was reached between C and the Defendant. C brought a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking consolation money and division of property on February 5, 2016. The Plaintiff did not appear to have demanded the Defendant to return the said money after paying the said money.

In particular, the Plaintiff did not have any financial condition at the time of paying the said money.