A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Defendant B loaned USD 100,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff lent USD 100,000 to Defendant B on January 2, 2007, and Defendant B did not return USD 100,000 paid by the Plaintiff as well as USD 50,000 paid by the Plaintiff.

Since the Plaintiff’s contract for a loan for consumption concluded with Defendant B was revoked on the ground of Defendant B’s deception or the Plaintiff’s mistake, Defendant B should return KRW 100,000,000 as unjust enrichment.

(2) Defendant C intended to make reasonable profits by exchanging USD 100,000 to Defendant B, and Defendant B intended to make a return of USD 500,000 to the Plaintiff if it would bring about USD 100,000 to the Plaintiff, and obtained USD 100,000 from the Plaintiff and acquired it from the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, should pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as damages.

B. In light of the overall purport of the arguments as to the joint tort claim (1) evidence Nos. 2-7, 8, 3, 4, 8, 8, 10, 10, 10, 11, and 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 2, the plaintiff became aware of the defendant Eul through police officer D on October 2006. The defendant Eul conspired with the defendant Eul to the plaintiff that 100,000,000 won would be created within one hour, and the plaintiff would return 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff on January 2, 2007. The plaintiff delivered USD Nos. 100,000 to the defendant Eul on 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff on 10,000,000 won to 00,000 won to the plaintiff on 10,000,000 won to 10,000.

‘The fact that it has drawn up and delivered a note of payment,’ can be recognized.