A. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for unjust enrichment of KRW 99,870,190 and damages for delay thereof, but the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, and the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal seeking revocation of the first instance judgment.

As the plaintiff appealed, the first instance court accepted the plaintiff's appeal and reversed and remanded the judgment of the first instance court prior to the remand.

B. The second instance court prior to the remanded the Plaintiff’s appeal and revoked the judgment of the first instance, but accepted the Defendant’s counterclaim, thereby dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim.

In the second instance prior to the remand, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff to the effect that he would transfer his claim equivalent to the amount claimed in the instant lawsuit to E, and that he would notify the Defendant thereof, but the second instance prior to the remand was dismissed.

As the Plaintiff appealed on the principal lawsuit, the second instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal and reversed and remanded the judgment of the party prior to the second instance.

C. Ultimately, the part of the counterclaim in the judgment of the party prior to the second remanding, which became final and conclusive, and only the part of the principal lawsuit in the judgment prior to the second remanding, which became subject to a trial after the second remanding.

2. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the reasoning for this Court’s judgment is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the “E” is cited as “E” under Article 11-12 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) such reasoning is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

3. Judgment on the grounds of claim

A. (1) In a case where the amount of tax paid under the name of the business title holder due to the occurrence of the obligation to return unjust enrichment was conducted by the business title holder and the taxation disposition was invalidated or canceled, the right to claim the refund of the amount of tax paid under the name of the business title holder is a direct party to the legal relationship between the business title holder and the tax authority.