1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 20, 2014 to December 10, 2014; and (b) December 11, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. The Plaintiff was in the late 1970s, and around August 2008, when the Defendant was dead from her husband, the Plaintiff re-explosed the Defendant from August 2008.

B. Since August 26, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 79,30,000 to the Defendant from around January 31, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the result of the party examination of the plaintiff himself, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims and judgment

A. As to both claims, the Defendant asserted that all of the aforementioned KRW 79.3 million transferred to the Defendant was donated to the Defendant, and filed a claim for the return thereof, the Defendant asserted to the effect that all of the aforementioned KRW 79.3 million was donated to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant asserted to the effect that, in the first written reply, the amount of KRW 50 million transferred from the Plaintiff was paid to the Plaintiff as a repayment for KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 was donated to the Plaintiff, and that thereafter, the previous assertion was reversed, on October 10, 2014, on which the said KRW 50,000 was donated from the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's above claim cannot be complied with.

B. (1) In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 50 million to the Defendant as of June 9, 2009, out of KRW 79,300,000, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant as of June 9, 2009, was the amount loaned rather than the amount that the Plaintiff donated to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is justified.

① On June 9, 2009, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and the said KRW 50 million is the money that the Plaintiff lent from his pro-enemy C.

② Since the Defendant received the above KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, the Defendant made a proposal to the effect that it would substitute for the payment of the apartment owned by the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff acquired the apartment owned by the Defendant.

A No. 3.