1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with C, the Defendant’s mother from around 2006 to April 2015.

B. On June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff sold to D the amount of KRW 320 square meters of E forest land in value of KRW 50 million in Nam-si, Namyang-si, which is one’s own ownership, and paid KRW 35 million out of the above sale price to the Defendant.

C. Around 2014, the Plaintiff sold a taxi that he/she driven to F, and F transferred KRW 30 million out of the sales price to the Defendant on September 16, 2014 at the direction of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 35 million to the Defendant, who is a child of C in a de facto marital relationship; and (b) on September 16, 2014, loaned KRW 30 million with the house purchase fund and KRW 10 million on October 13, 2014; and (c) on November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 4 million with the marriage fund.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 79 million and damages for delay.

Even if it is not acknowledged that the Plaintiff was lent to the Defendant, the Defendant received KRW 79 million from the Plaintiff without any legal ground. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff KRW 79 million and delay damages therefrom.

3. Even though there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the assertion of the loan, the plaintiff asserts the cause of receiving the loan as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it was received due to the loan for consumption, if so, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it was received due to the loan

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1979). First, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid each of the Defendant with KRW 10 million on October 13, 2014, and KRW 4 million on November 20, 2014, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.