1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 9, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 21, 1998, the Defendant reported a marriage with C on August 21, 1998, and subsequently rendered a judicial divorce around July 2010.

The Plaintiff is the mother of C.

B. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant on November 12, 2007, and KRW 100 million on November 14, 2007, and the Defendant, around the end of 2008, issued to the Plaintiff a loan certificate stating that “I certify that I have borrowed KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff.”

C. On November 1, 2012, the Defendant, upon receipt of a decision to grant immunity due to bankruptcy, became final and conclusive. At the time, the claim for the loan that the Plaintiff seeks as the instant lawsuit is omitted in the list of claims submitted by the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts based on the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 200 million to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

Around the end of 2008, the defendant alleged that D, who had been a captain at the time of the end of 2008, threatened D with the defendant to send her children to her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her children

B. The parties' assertion as to whether the exemption is effective or not, the defendant did not receive KRW 200 million from the plaintiff as business funds, but it is unclear whether the above money was donated to C, the nature of which is the wife, and the loan to the defendant. The plaintiff demanded the preparation of a loan certificate with strong pressure after giving the above money, and even before filing the lawsuit of this case even after drawing up the loan certificate, it was difficult to recognize the above KRW 200 million as the obligation, since it did not go against the fact of the existence of the obligation, and therefore, it is argued that the exemption has the effect of the exemption.

As to this, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff.