The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a creditor of the Defendant’s child C, and C transferred KRW 2,00,000,000 to the Defendant through his/her agent D on November 20, 2015 constitutes an act of deception and thus, constitutes an act of deception, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim KRW 500,000,000 as compensation for the amount of the Plaintiff’s delayed damages.

The argument is asserted.

(b) The facts of recognition 1) C, through E and D Company F operated by E, intended to acquire a listed company and jointly operate the company, thereby obtaining KRW 2,00,000,000 from E in order to raise the amount of KRW 40,000,000 for the acquisition fund.

2) E deposited C’s agent D with KRW 903,370,00 on November 18, 2015, KRW 69,000 on November 19, 2015, KRW 440,000 on November 20, 2015, and KRW 40,000 on November 20, 2015, and D again transferred KRW 2,00,000,00 to the Defendant’s bank account under C’s direction.

On the same day, the defendant immediately remitted the amount of KRW 2,00,000,000 to four securities accounts of C's children G on the same day.

3) On October 2005, C used the Defendant’s account as a mother who was detained and detained for more than ten years and was suffering from dementia in 1938 due to the impossibility of using his account in his name, and used his own son and her friendly account.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 5, 16, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, 2, 3, and 4, witness D's testimony, and the whole purport of oral argument.

According to the above facts of recognition, C’s KRW 2,00,00,000 received from E through D is the money that C should use for its new business and E. If it was used for repayment to the existing general creditors of C including the Plaintiff, etc., it may be a fraud or embezzlement, and the said money is not a liability property for the existing general creditors.

Therefore, unlike the promise with E, the mother of C is the defendant.