1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, who was in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, was to purchase the certificate of self-help in the name of the defendant in the name of the non-party C in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff in the amount of KRW 35 million, but the plaintiff first paid the purchase amount of KRW 13 million in the purchase amount and

Accordingly, the Plaintiff prepared KRW 9 million from the Plaintiff’s proprietary property and KRW 4 million from the property formed with C, and paid KRW 13 million in total to the Defendant.

However, the defendant did not transfer the name of the permission to the plaintiff, and since the de facto marital relationship between the plaintiff and C is now in distress, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff nine million won paid from the plaintiff's proprietary property out of the above 13 million won.

2. According to the records of Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff paid KRW 9 million to the defendant on February 14, 2017. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone was a sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above nine million won paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was the purchase price, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit to examine the remainder of the claim.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange at this court is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(The plaintiff's claim for the loan was withdrawn by exchange change in this court, and the judgment of the first instance was invalidated).