1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The relationship between the parties - The defendant was married with C around 1984, and was separated from December 26, 201, and on August 19, 2014, the Seoul Family Court rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant that the defendant and C would divorce on July 6, 2016. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 16, 2016.

- The plaintiff is a married couple with D, and C is a married couple.

- The Plaintiff, her husband, has been staying in a foreign country for a long time and managed D’s account.

The details of remittance between the parties - from the branch credit union account in the name of the plaintiff to the Nonghyup Bank account in the name of the defendant, the amount of KRW 50,000,000 was transferred from February 18, 2014.

- The Defendant remitted the sum of KRW 103,00,000 on March 25, 2004 to D’s account, KRW 50,000,00 on April 11, 2005, KRW 16,000 on March 18, 2008, and KRW 103,000 on March 18, 200.

- The Plaintiff, using the D’s account, remitted each of the KRW 75,00,000,000 to C’s account on December 6, 2005, KRW 30,000 on December 7, 2005, and KRW 75,00,000 on December 15, 2005, respectively.

- The Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant’s account on June 11, 2007, using D’s account.

- From the national bank account under C’s name to D’s account on September 16, 2003, the total of KRW 119,000,000,000 on October 31, 2003, and KRW 18,200,000 on November 26, 2003, and KRW 40,000 on February 26, 2008, and KRW 30,000 on March 17, 2008, respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the above facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 3, witness D, Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff remitted KRW 50,00,000 to the defendant on February 18, 2014. However, in light of the following facts, which are acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 8-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 8-9 and the whole purport of the pleadings, and the circumstances revealed thereby, each of the above facts of recognition and witness D, and Eul's testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent KRW 50,00,00 to the defendant, and any other evidence to prove otherwise.