1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C’s KRW 15,00,000 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 6, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or the plaintiff transferred 50 million won as the down payment for the purchase of real estate to the defendant C on August 22, 2017, but the purchase of real estate was not made but the plaintiff intended to receive the above 50 million won as the purchase of real estate was made, and on June 21, 2017, lent 10 million won to the defendant D, who is the child of defendant C, and the plaintiff has received the above return agreement amounting to 50 million won from the defendant C.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff money calculated by the rate of 15 percent per annum from August 6, 2018 following the date following the delivery date of the Plaintiff’s claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim, which was the following day after the date of the return agreement with respect to the amount of KRW 15 million under the refund agreement and the amount of money calculated by the rate of 15 percent per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which was the following day of the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, from August 25, 2018 to the date of full payment.

2. As to the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, Defendant C should have the amount of KRW 18,960,000 paid for the extension of the store E owned by the Plaintiff at the request of the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 11,346,00 paid for the nursing expenses incurred in giving medical treatment to the Plaintiff who had difficulty in driving for several years in a de facto marriage relationship with the Plaintiff in the 23-year de facto marriage (Seoul Seodaemun-gu).

However, the evidence submitted by Defendant C alone entered into a nursing contract as alleged by Defendant C as the Plaintiff’s de facto spouse.

It is difficult to see that the extended construction was carried out at his own expense, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, Defendant C’s (Offset) does not take any further account.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted.