1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff, the former husband, died of a traffic accident on the part of June 9, 2015. After that, the Defendant presented to the Plaintiff a letter that C was written on April 28, 2014, demanding C to pay KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff believed that the above letter was made true, and paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on September 2, 2015, and later, the above letter was known and later, the Defendant was forged.

The plaintiff, as the defendant was accused and sent money to the defendant due to the forged statement, is revoked. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 50 million won and delay damages.

B. The defendant did not produce a documentary evidence (No. 1) to the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff did not pay KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant by deceiving the plaintiff to report each written evidence.

The plaintiff knew that C borrowed a considerable amount of money from the defendant, and that C talks about a number of times that C would have paid the amount of death insurance, and paid KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant in order to implement the repayment promise.

In addition, the defendant does not have forged each letter, and C is written with the acceptance of the defendant as he or she receives.

2. According to the result of the judgment appraiser E’s stamp image appraisal, it is recognized that there is a difference between C’s stamp image stamped on A’s No. 1 and A’s stamp image marked on A’s No. 5-5.

However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, and 3-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 3-2, the defendant sent money equivalent to KRW 50 million to C. However, the defendant also seems to have not been able to give a free donation of KRW 50 million to C because there is no particular income, and the plaintiff also believed that the defendant was present at the date of the second pleading of the case on July 8, 2016 and gave a return to the defendant to grant a return of money to C. The plaintiff believed that the defendant would be able to grant a return of money to C. The evidence No. 1.