1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 3,00,000 and its amount from March 21, 2017 to August 16, 2018.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties, etc. (1) The plaintiff A delivered the E-Date F on December 15, 2006 to D and delivered the E-Date F on December 4, 2009. The plaintiff B was omitted from the plaintiff A, and the defendant is a person in a legal marital relationship with G from November 3, 1983.

(2) On May 2006, Plaintiff A became aware of the Defendant as a workplace club fee, and maintained a pro rata relationship.

B. The Defendant brought a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, as Seoul Family Court Decision 2016Ddan36143, asserting that “The Plaintiff maintained a de facto marriage relationship with the Defendant since March 2008, the Defendant was living together with another person since July 2016, and thus, the Defendant sought compensation and division of property due to an unfair de facto marriage destruction against the Plaintiff A.”

(2) On August 25, 2017, the above court accepted the fact that the defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff A, but dismissed the damage compensation and the claim for division of property due to the unfair destruction of a de facto marriage on the grounds that there is no protection value as a de facto marital relationship. On the other hand, the court ordered the defendant to pay consolation money of KRW 10 million on the ground that the plaintiff's act of deceiving F as the defendant's child constitutes a tort. Accordingly, upon appeal by the plaintiff A, the Seoul Family Court is still in force with the defendant as the Seoul Family Court 2017Reu32023 at present.

[Judgment of the court below] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiffs: (a) believe that they would pay money by making an investment in shares; and (b) paid KRW 25 million to the Defendant on May 9, 2011; (c) the Defendant refused to return the said amount without notifying at all thereafter of the status of the investment in shares.