A. The plaintiff was the representative of C agency, the defendant was the person who worked as the team leader at the above agency, and the non-party D was the insurance solicitor of the above agency.

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 18,050,748 from July 1, 201 to October 24, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant money”). C.

The defendant filed a lawsuit against the non-party D claiming the payment of KRW 20,000,000 against the non-party D, and the non-party D asserted that KRW 18,050,748, which the plaintiff paid to the defendant, was subrogated for the debt owed to the non-party D by the non-party D, but the above subrogation defense was rejected and the decision was rendered to the defendant that the defendant shall pay KRW 20,00,000 and the delay damages for the payment thereof (the defendant was decided on December 10, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2014Na12567, which became final and conclusive around that time.

[Recognizing Facts] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 25 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that, around the other hand, the amount of this case paid by the plaintiff to the defendant should be returned to the defendant without any legal ground, and the additional amount of 2,00,000,000 won should be repaid. The plaintiff asserts that, in addition, even if the amount of this case is not recognized as a whole as a unjust enrichment, at least 7,10,000 won which the defendant recognized as a loan should be returned to the loan and the remaining amount should be returned to the defendant as unjust enrichment.

B. We examine the determination of the primary claim, and the following circumstances that are acknowledged by the facts and grounds for recognition, namely, ① the representative of the insurance agency, and the defendant, who served as the team leader at the same agency, and the period during which the money in this case is received also from the plaintiff and the defendant.