1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff, while living together with the Defendant, provided that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 1,00,000 per month to the Defendant at the cost of living, and if the Plaintiff does not live together, the said agreement is null and void (if the Plaintiff left the Defendant, the said agreement remains effective) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”), and, in order to ensure the above agreement on the same day, the Plaintiff prepared and executed a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”) stating the purport of recognizing compulsory execution in the event of nonperformance of obligation by making the Defendant the Defendant the obligee as the obligee, in order to clarify the above agreement on the same day.

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 9,00,000 in total to the Defendant’s account between June 3, 2014 and June 3, 2014.

C. From September 2014, the Defendant and the Plaintiff did not live together. The Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of the Plaintiff’s land, etc. in the Gangwon-do Crossing-gun, Gangwon-gun, which is owned by the Plaintiff with the claim amounting to KRW 111,00,000 on the basis of the instant notarial deed, and the decision to commence compulsory auction was issued as D on November 28, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 13, 16 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that there was no actual act of borrowing between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, such as the content of the agreement in this case, and the Defendant is in violation of the agreement in this case, and thus, the Defendant does not live together with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, in accordance with the contents of the instant agreement, the said agreement is null and void, and the said agreement is also null and void. Thus, the said agreement is rejected as stated in the purport of the claim.

3.The judgment of this Court may be identified by taking full account of the respective descriptions of evidence and the whole purport of arguments as set forth in Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17, as follows: