A. The Defendant’s judgment on the cause of the claim will deliver KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, who operates C.

“In doing so, the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff on June 17, 2005, a total of KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff received KRW 20,00,000 from the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to return the above amount of KRW 80,000,000 received from the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstance.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged that all of the money received from the Plaintiff was delivered to D, the Defendant deposited KRW 100,000,000 in the account in the name of E on June 17, 2005, and thereafter, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant deposited KRW 15,00,000,000 in the above account in the aggregate of KRW 10,000,000,000, and KRW 20,000,000 on June 29, 2005, and KRW 30,000,000 on June 30, 200, KRW 200,000 on June 30, 2005, and KRW 10,000,000 on June 30, 200, 200 on July 17, 2005; and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion was justifiable.

C. According to the theory of the lawsuit, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 3,000,000 won by unjust enrichment (=80,000,000 won - the sum of 77,00,000,000 won transferred to the Plaintiff to the said C) and at the same time, from June 17, 2005, the date of the above money payment, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence of the Defendant’s duty to perform and the scope of the said duty, 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until April 9, 2015, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion is that of the defendant.