A. On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff is the representative director of the “B Agricultural Cooperative”, who was designated by the Director of the National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service as an accrediting agency for eco-friendly agricultural products and conducts affairs with which agricultural products can be certified as eco-friendly agricultural products in order to foster eco-friendly agriculture and protect consumers.

B. Since February 20 to March 27, 2013, 201, D, a general manager of the Defendant’s environment-friendly agricultural products, in collusion with C and D, in violation of the duty to properly execute project costs, such as certification fees for environment-friendly agricultural products, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 62,548,00 by paying the Plaintiff certification fees for environment-friendly agricultural products, and causing damages equivalent to the same amount to the Defendant, etc. who is the victim, in collusion with C and D, the Plaintiff was suspected of having committed the above occupational breach of trust in collusion with C and C, and the on-site examination cannot be conducted, although it cannot be confirmed whether the above occupational breach of trust has been committed, or whether the snow has been covered by the snow, and further, certification has been launched by means of determining that the farmland site or production plan was insufficient, and then, it was charged with fraud through a criminal trial by the Defendant under the Seoul District Court 261,265, supra.

C. The Plaintiff did not exercise the right to claim for recovery of the deposited money until the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive. The Plaintiff reported the restriction on recovery of the deposited money to the deposited person as the Defendant, and attempted to provide the deposited money to the deposited person with realizing the deposited money in relation to the criminal case of Seoul Western District Court 2013Kadan2627 decided December 26, 2013, but refused to receive the deposited money. Thus, the Plaintiff deposited the deposited money as the cause of deposit 686.