1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap 2 to 10 evidence.

Defendant and C were divorced while they live as married couple.

B. From January 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a transactional relationship, such as remitting or receiving money from time to time with C, etc.

C. C around August 15, 2014, paid to the Plaintiff KRW 14,00,000 by August 21, 2014, and paid KRW 1,000,000 for installment savings from August 25, 2014 to KRW 24 months, and paid KRW 1,00,000 for each 25th day.

Around October 10, 2014, a written agreement providing that “The amount of KRW 3,00,000,000 on October 25, 2010, KRW 2,000,000 on November 10, and KRW 3,000,000 on December 10, 25, KRW 2,000,000 on December 10, 200, KRW 3,000 on December 25, 200, KRW 2,000,000 on January 10, and KRW 3,00,000,000 on January 25, 200, KRW 2,00,000 on February 3, 25,000, KRW 3,000,000 on February 25, 200, and KRW 7,000 on February 205, 200.”

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that C had any monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and C around August 15, 2014 and October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff settled the amount of the debt of C’s loan to the Plaintiff as KRW 62,00,000 or KRW 65,00,000, and C agreed that C shall repay the said loan to the Plaintiff in sequence in accordance with the terms of the payment agreement or the certificate of loan.

However, C did not repay the borrowed money to the Plaintiff, and rather borrowed money from the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant, who was the wife of C, to pay the borrowed amount in lieu of C, and the Defendant promised to pay KRW 29,000,000 out of the borrowed amount to the Plaintiff, while making telephone conversations with the Plaintiff around March 15, 2015.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 29,000,000 to the plaintiff.

B. (1) The interpretation of a juristic act is clearly made by the parties to the act of indication.