부당이득금
The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
The reason why the defendant appealed in the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance while filing an appeal, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is different from the material submitted in the court of first instance, the recognition of facts in the court of first instance and the judgment are justified.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the second and third cases where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which expanded the purport of the claim by filing an incidental appeal in relation to the subject claim at the court of first instance, is re-written, that is, the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is consistent with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, citing it in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
If a creditor of the judgment on the subject claim makes a lawsuit by combining the subject claim by adding the compensation for compensatory damage instead of the original claim, the subject claim shall be deemed to belong to the simple combination of the claim for payment and the future claim for payment. In this case, the amount of the subject claim shall be calculated based on the price of the original benefit at the time of the closing of argument at the fact-finding court.
(See Supreme Court Decision 75Da450 Decided July 22, 1975, and Supreme Court Decision 2011Da3066, 30673 Decided August 18, 201, etc.). According to such legal doctrine, insofar as the Defendant contests the existence of the obligation to deliver the instant virtual currency, it is necessary to claim compensatory damages in advance in preparation for a case where the Plaintiff is unable to enforce enforcement against the instant virtual currency as a lawsuit for future performance.
Furthermore, around August 25, 2020 near the date of the closing of the instant argument, the fact that the domestic market price of the ETH was 474,192 per 1 ionium (ETH) is significant in this court, or there is no dispute between the parties, and is the date of the closing of the instant argument.