1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On April 2012, the Plaintiff, a primary fact-finding South-North Korea, became aware of the Defendant who had been operating the wabing shop in the name of “C”, and thereafter, there is a dispute between the parties as to whether the Defendant, who had maintained an inappropriate relationship with the Defendant, was aware of the Plaintiff’s remaining in Korea.

On March 18, 2013, a total of KRW 50 million and KRW 90 million on April 23, 2013 were remitted to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 90 million to the Defendant.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, without any condition, donated the Defendant the above KRW 90 million to the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff, while working as if he was not the father-Nam, donated the Defendant the above KRW 90 million to the Defendant on the condition of marriage with the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff’s failure to fulfill the above conditions, leading the Plaintiff to be the father-Nam, thereby hindering the fulfillment of the said conditions by himself, should be deemed as having been fulfilled.

3) The Plaintiff paid KRW 90 million to the Defendant for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse with the Defendant under pre-Marriage the marriage with the Defendant, or to maintain internal relations with the Defendant, which cannot be claimed as illegal consideration. 4) The Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff by home affairs.

However, around May 27, 2013, when the Plaintiff was under suspicion of occupational embezzlement, the Plaintiff promised not to return the above money when he requested the Defendant to help the Defendant, and the Defendant assisted the Plaintiff accordingly, and thus, the Plaintiff waived the above right to request the return.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s nature of KRW 90 million, which the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant, is the most important key issue in determining whether the water source is a loan for consumption or a donation for consumption. As such, it is difficult to readily conclude that it was a donation between husband and wife, and that it was a donation between men and women, on the ground that it received money between husband and wife.