1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On the premise, the Plaintiff and C (former name D) married on September 11, 2010 and divorced on February 8, 2013.

The defendant is the birth of C, E is the father of the plaintiff, and F is the father of the defendant.

Plaintiff

On September 2, 201, from the account under the name of the defendant to the account under the name of the defendant, KRW 90,000,000 was transferred from September 2, 201, and KRW 90,000,000 was transferred from the account under the name of the defendant to the account under the name of the defendant.

Meanwhile, from the account under C’s name to the account under the Plaintiff’s name on May 23, 2012, KRW 20,000,000, KRW 34,000,000 on May 29, 2012, and KRW 30,000 on May 23, 2012, respectively, was transferred to the account under the Plaintiff’s name.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-5, 6-5, 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 2, 201, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend funds necessary for the transfer of clothing stores, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 90,000,000 to the Defendant on September 2, 201. The Defendant paid KRW 54,00,000 to the Plaintiff via the account in the name of C (= KRW 20,000,000 on May 23, 2012). As such, the Plaintiff should pay to the Plaintiff the remaining loans and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act.

B. On September 201, 201, C, which was in a marital relationship with the Plaintiff’s assertion, acquired a clothing store operated by the Defendant, and the said KRW 90,000,000, is the acquisition price that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant at C’s request.

In fact, at the time when the Defendant returned the above clothing store back from C, the Plaintiff returned KRW 90,00,000, which was first paid upon request from his father F, to C. Since C again transfers it to the Plaintiff and E’s account, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above money was loaned is unreasonable.

3. The key issue of this case is the legal nature of the Plaintiff’s 90,000,000 won paid to the Defendant.

A Evidence 2, 6, 7, 8, 3, 4, 5-2, 7, 9, 10-2, 14-5, 15-1, 15-2.