1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff as the parties and the defendant are married couple who completed the marriage report on April 19, 2005.

(A) evidence of heading 1, 2.b.

The plaintiff remitted money to his father from May 2, 2006 to March 27, 2019, the plaintiff transferred USD 273,586.82 in total to the father of the defendant in Vietnam over 56 times.

(A) Nos. 3 and 4: Provided, That some of them have been remitted in the name of the plaintiff's father or the defendant ($ 10,000 on December 1, 2017, USD 50,000 on December 20, 2017).

Since April 2019, the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant began with the conflict in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant came to face with the issue of adopting the Defendant’s early adoption of the Plaintiff’s Cho Jong as the Plaintiff’s adoption. Around May 2019, the Defendant, who started home, filed a divorce lawsuit against the Plaintiff with the Suwon Family Court, and subsequently withdrawn the said divorce lawsuit. However, even until now, the Plaintiff and the Defendant expressed their intention not to maintain the marriage with the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 11, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

1.(b)

Since money is lent to the defendant by means of remittance as prescribed in paragraph (1), the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff transferred money to the father of the Defendant because it was necessary in the course of running the business.

In other words, the money that the plaintiff transferred to the father of the defendant is not lent to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties to the legal doctrine provided and received money, the fact that the plaintiff lent the money should be proven when the defendant asserts that the loan was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed in paragraph (1) of this Article and the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10, together with the purport of the entire pleadings.