The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 5, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, comprehensively considered the formation process of the instant insurance and the management details of G on the instant insurance, determined that the instant insurance was the property created by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s mother G with its own funds, and that at the time the instant loan was made, G was also entitled to dispose of the instant insurance at the time of the instant loan.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the probative value of disposal documents, the meaning of prior donated property, the right to dispose of insurance, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 6 and 7, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the subject who used the instant loan is G, and that the instant loan was used to reduce the criminal liability of G in relation to the embezzlement crime of G.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the confirmation of contractual parties and the burden of proof, or by violating the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.