1. As to KRW 36,00,000 and KRW 10,000 among the Plaintiff, Defendant B shall be from January 12, 2012 to October 13, 2017.

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 and the argument as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff's wife paid KRW 10,00,000 to "E company" through defendant B on August 10, 2011, and prepared and issued a certificate of loan to the effect that the defendant B returned the principal until January 10, 2012, and the plaintiff's wife was 26,000,000 won through the defendant B around January 31, 201 (B 3,4, and 6) (the plaintiff's wife was 26,00,000,000 won for more than 26,00,000,000 won for the plaintiff's wife, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and the plaintiff is obligated to return the principal to the defendant B's wife's heir, and the plaintiff is obligated to return the above certificate of loan to the plaintiff's heir, who is the defendant B's heir.

B. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B merely claimed that D received money from D and transferred money to the account designated by D because it demanded to deposit money instead of the investment money, and that it is the victim of the investment.

According to the statements in evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6, Defendant B received KRW 10,00,000 from D on August 10, 201 and remitted it to H, and the fact that Defendant B received KRW 26,000,000 from D on January 31, 201 and remitted KRW 25,00,000 to I is recognized.

However, in light of the fact that Defendant B voluntarily prepared each of the loans set forth in subparagraphs A and 2, and the above loan certificate does not state that the third party, not Defendant B, pays it, while the principal is not recovered by the time set forth in the above loan certificate, the fact that there is no objection to the seizure of allowances or cash.