부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim that was selectively added in the appellate court is dismissed.
3...
1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court is that the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the relevant part among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited for this part
2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The date when the Plaintiff received a loan from the Korea Mutual Savings Bank Company with her husband D with her husband D, the Defendants did not have a duty to pay the said money to the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants did not have a duty to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 210 million for the loan to the employees of the Bank, and did not receive KRW 210 million for the Plaintiff, and did not deliver the said amount to the employees of the Bank. Furthermore, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants would pay KRW 210 million for the loan to the employees of the Bank constitutes a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (rec., Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes) and thus, the Defendants did not have a duty to pay the said money to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants had a duty to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money to the Plaintiff without any legal ground or the amount of money equivalent to KRW 210 million for the loan of KRW 200 million due to the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment or delay damages.
2.3.