Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff is a clan consisting of both men and women of 20 years of age or older born in Da, from among descendants of Da, and the Defendant is the representative of the Plaintiff around 2015.

B. The Defendant received KRW 18 million from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account (EF) on March 31, 2015, totaling KRW 18,000,000, and KRW 18,648,000 on April 9, 2015, under the name of the Plaintiff’s preemptive construction and graveyard leader (hereinafter “instant construction”).

C. The Defendant withdrawn KRW 5 million from the foregoing account on April 9, 2015, KRW 9.7 million on April 13, 2015, KRW 15 million on May 7, 2015, and KRW 15 million on the aggregate.

[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 10, and the result of this court's response to an order to submit financial transaction information to E unions, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant, while serving as the Plaintiff’s president, carried out the instant construction project at all other officers. The Defendant was paid KRW 18,648,000 in total based on the written estimate of KRW 11,208,000 in the name of G and the written estimate of KRW 7,440,00 in the name of H, the Defendant’s representative, based on the written estimate of KRW 11,208,00 in the supply amount under the name of H.

B) However, even if the Defendant paid the construction cost to the Plaintiff’s account in order to do so directly with the Plaintiff’s account, the Defendant’s receipt of the construction cost at the Plaintiff’s account was for embezzlement of part of the construction cost, and the actual cost incurred for the instant construction cost appears to have been in full of KRW 15 million that was actually withdrawn from the Defendant’s account. C) Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from tort or return of unjust enrichment, excluding KRW 18,648,000 that was actually paid as the instant construction cost (i.e., KRW 15,00,000, excluding KRW 18,648,000 that was actually paid as the instant construction cost (= KRW 18,648,000 - KRW 15,5

The plaintiff.