A. On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff Company received, from A and B, a copy of a promissory note with a face value of KRW 50,000 on September 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) and the due date on October 6, 2015, with a face value of KRW 30,000,000, which was issued by the Defendant Company for financing purposes.

B. On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff Company issued the instant promissory note discount amount of KRW 48,000,000 to Namyang-Tech Co., Ltd., and received the remainder of KRW 38,000,000,000 after deducting the amount equivalent to KRW 10,000,000 from the said discount amount.

C. On July 6, 2015, the instant promissory note was issued to Daegu Tech, Inc. on the payment of the purchase price of goods. D.

As the Defendant Company did not receive the discount price for the Promissory Notes, it reported that the Promissory Notes amounted to KRW 50,000,000, the face value was changed to KRW 10,000,000, while the Promissory Notes amounted to KRW 10,000, and thereafter, on September 16, 2015, the Daegu Tech presented the payment of the Promissory Notes to the Bank. However, the Promissory Notes was refused due to the said declaration.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff Company remitted the total of KRW 50,000,000 to the bank account under the name of the Defendant Company, including KRW 22,00,000,000 on September 16, 2015, and KRW 28,00,000 on September 17, 2015.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company issued the bill of this case for financing purposes, but prevented payment of the bill of this case on the ground of alteration of the bill of this case. However, the defendant company received the bill of this case from the plaintiff company discounted the third party a total of KRW 50,000,000 from funds for payment of the bill of this case, and benefits without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant company is obligated to return it to the plaintiff company as unjust enrichment.

As to this, the defendant company is the plaintiff.