A. Around December 16, 2012, the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) provided a total of KRW 41 million with the Defendant to operate a pleasure boat in common with the Defendant; and (b) paid KRW 41,00,000 to Nonparty D’s arbitration around March 4, 2013 due to disputes arising in the operation of a pleasure boat; (c) provided that KRW 26,00,000 shall be returned to Nonparty D by October 30, 2014; and (d) the remainder of KRW 15,00,000 shall be substituted by the Plaintiff’s residence and management expenses, public charges, and expenses for anchoring lines for the next three years.

However, the defendant did not return the remainder of the repayment of KRW 2 million and did not guarantee the plaintiff's residence, etc. amounting to KRW 15 million.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay 39 million won and damages for delay with unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the amount equivalent to KRW 22,80,000 which was not paid by the plaintiff should be deducted from the total amount of KRW 36,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was not paid by the plaintiff, due to the non-delivery of a motor boat mooring expenses, and the residential space for mooring.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant, on March 4, 2013, agreed to pay KRW 26 million to the Plaintiff by October 30, 2014, but can be acknowledged that only KRW 2 million was paid.

B. Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 through 5, it may be recognized that the provision of convenience, such as accommodation and mooring of pleasure boats, offered by the defendant to the plaintiff constitutes the expenses equivalent to the housing and management expenses, public charges, and expenses for anchoring boats equivalent to the approximate 15 million won, and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff failed to receive convenience, such as housing and management expenses, public charges, and expenses for anchoring boats, which are equivalent to the KRW 15 million from the defendant on the sole basis of each of the images set forth in evidence No. 8-1 through 5 of the evidence No. 8-5 of this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(c) therefore.