1.The following amounts, among the parts against the principal suit of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be payable:

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 1979, the Plaintiff was married with the Defendant and slicked with the Defendant (hereinafter “the deceased”). On July 1, 1981, the Plaintiff brought up the Deceased on the part of the Defendant.

Temporary amount of KRW 400,000 on November 14, 2005, KRW 300,000 on January 14, 2006, KRW 5,000,000 on March 24, 2006, KRW 5,000 on August 25, 2006, KRW 20,000 on December 5, 2006, KRW 20,000 on December 3, 2007, KRW 5,000 on April 3, 2007, KRW 00,000 on April 13, 2007; KRW 1,00,000 on October 1, 200, KRW 00,000 on KRW 1,00 on October 13, 207; and KRW 300,00 on the aggregate of KRW 130,00 on May 13, 108, 2008

B. From November 2005, the Deceased engaged in the Internet clothes sales business, and from November 4, 2005 to March 18, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 55,913,100 to the deceased’s account as shown below.

(hereinafter “the instant money”). C.

On June 28, 2006, the deceased married with D on June 28, 2006, D murdered the deceased on July 24, 2012 and committed suicide on the same day.

On the other hand, on October 2, 2012, the Defendant reported the qualified acceptance of inheritance to the deceased to the Seoul Family Court and received a ruling on December 14, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 4 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the defendant's share of inheritance among the above loans within the extent of the property inherited from the deceased, since the money in this case was lent to the deceased without setting interest and the due date for repayment.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the amount of this case was only a donation to the deceased, who is his father, and cannot be viewed as a loan.

B. As to whether the nature of the instant money is a loan, each of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 11 (including each number), as well as all of the aforementioned evidence.