2...

A. On April 6, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted (1) 22,000,000 won as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant and the Defendant made an investment in importing and selling the set of money (SET). The Defendant paid KRW 22,00,000 to the Defendant with the investment deposit, and the Defendant rescinded the said investment contract with the delivery of the complaint of this case as the Defendant did not sell the set of money, thereby claiming a return of unjust enrichment. If the Defendant’s investment contract is not recognized, the Plaintiff received the said money from the Plaintiff without any legal ground and obtained a profit of KRW 22,00,000,000 without compensation, and the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the said amount, and thus, sought a payment of the said money as a return of unjust enrichment.

In addition, according to the defendant's argument, the defendant received money from the plaintiff to deliver it to the plaintiff's family members.

Even if the defendant did not deliver the above money to the plaintiff's family, it is sought to pay the above money by return of unjust enrichment.

(2) On July 22, 2006, the Plaintiff leased US dollars 6,000 to the Defendant on August 22, 2006, and the Defendant did not pay USD 3,000 among them, thereby claiming payment of USD 3,000 and delay damages from August 22, 2006.

Even if it is recognized that C, the Plaintiff’s wife, who is not the Plaintiff, lent the above USD 6,00 to the Defendant, C transferred the above USD 3,000 to the Plaintiff’s claim on December 25, 2014, and the Plaintiff sought payment of USD 3,000 as the acquisition amount and delayed payment for the above USD 3,00 to the Defendant. Even if the above money is not recognized as a loan, the above USD 3,00, which the Defendant received from the Plaintiff, is deemed to have no legal cause, and thus, the Defendant sought payment for the return of unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion (1) 22,000,000 won.