1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Case summary and judgment

A. The fact that the plaintiff is the husband of the defendant's father C, and the fact that the plaintiff and C have proceeded with the divorce procedure is not disputed between the parties, or recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport

B. Accordingly, while the Plaintiff was entrusted to C during the marriage period, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife lent a total of KRW 127,544,340 to the Defendant. Of the above monetary claims, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s share (the division ratio of property following divorce with C) is 60%, and sought payment of the amount stated in the claim against the Defendant.

C. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 3-2, the fact that the defendant or (the plaintiff's assertion) was remitted total of KRW 127,544,340 to the defendant's related persons is recognized.

However, in the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, the transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a gift, and a repayment. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement between the parties to a loan for consumption, etc. solely on the sole basis of the fact that such transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was consistent is attributable to the Plaintiff claiming that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). The cause of the instant claim is premised on the fact that the Defendant fully borrows money from the Plaintiff’s husband and wife (the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife have jointly agreed on the loan for consumption). However, “A” No. 4 [the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife] recorded a conversation with C, which was divided by C, to grasp the current state of marital property based on the divorce with C (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20

C) The contents are as follows: (a) in order to enhance the words of the Plaintiff’s question, confirmation, proposal, etc., and repeated emotional response against C’s question, confirmation, proposal, etc., of the C.