1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 11, 2001, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with Nonparty C on January 14, 201, and subsequently divorced on January 14, 2015, and the Defendant is C’s friendship.

B. From the new bank account in C’s name (hereinafter “instant account”), the Defendant deposited KRW 5 million on March 29, 201, KRW 500,000,000 on August 31, 2011, KRW 10 million on October 23, 201, KRW 500,000 on December 14, 201, KRW 500,000 on December 20, 201, KRW 10,000 on January 10, 201, KRW 300,000 on January 10, 201, KRW 300,00 on April 10, 201, KRW 300,000 on April 16, 201, KRW 300,500 on June 28, 2012, KRW 300,5305,530,5300,531.

C. On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff adjusted the divorce and division of property (real estate, vehicles, personal goods, etc.) with C on January 14, 2015 in the lawsuit, including the case of the Incheon District Court 2014ddan686, 2014ddan17602 (Counterclaim).

"All property other than those prescribed in the above shall belong to each person under the current title," including the adjustment clause.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 5, and Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant lent money to the Defendant as material cost is required for drawing up the pent, and that the Plaintiff lent the sum of KRW 40,590,000 to the Defendant from 2011 to 2013 by using the instant account that he used.

As to this, the defendant alleged that C lent the said money to the defendant, and that the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment, the fact that the sum of KRW 40,590,000 was deposited to the Defendant from the account of this case is as seen earlier, and according to each of the above evidence, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4 as well as the whole of the arguments and arguments, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff operated the place of business under C’s name while operating the place of business under C.

On the other hand, each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 11, and evidence Nos. 2 and 3 are presented.