1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant lived with C from October 2007.

B. On October 3, 2013, the Plaintiff, a member of C, transferred KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s financial account.

C. From October 2013, the Defendant opened and operates a coffee shop in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

The relationship between the defendant and C was very worse around December 2013, and C went on January 1, 2014.

E. C filed a request for a trial seeking division of property against the Defendant on August 11, 2016, and argued that, around October 2013, the Defendant did not appear to hold a coffee shop worth KRW 150 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and its determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on March 18, 2013, and the Defendant agreed to pay the above money at the request of the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above amount of KRW 50 million and the interest or delay damages therefrom from March 19, 2013 to the date of full payment.

B. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant on March 18, 2013. However, as seen earlier, it is only recognized that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the Defendant on October 3, 2013.

On March 18, 2013, the Plaintiff’s assertion appears to be a clerical error on October 3, 2013, and thus, it appears that the date of remittance is 18:03:55, Oct. 3, 2013, the Plaintiff appears to be confused with the date of remittance, and the time of remittance is likely to be confused with the date of remittance and the time of remittance) is a loan to the Defendant on October 3, 2013 (hereinafter “amount of remittance”).

Not only did the loan certificate stating the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the due date or interest have not been prepared, but also that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit more than six years after the date of remittance, but also did not seem to have been given the demand for repayment to the Defendant before the instant lawsuit was filed.