1. Basic facts and

2. The grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of “Article 3 (Definition of Terms) to “the definition of terms to be used in this Agreement shall be in accordance with Article 3 of the Framework Act and relevant provisions,” which is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (Articles 17 through 17). Thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. As to the subject of the instant enforcement, the court’s reasoning for this part is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 12, 20, 14, and 14). As such, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The Plaintiff’s obligation to return unjust enrichment 1) accrued and scope of the Plaintiff’s obligation to return unjust enrichment 1) and the Plaintiff bears its burden on the instant execution subject to the Plaintiff’s obligation. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to return it to the Defendant without any legal cause. Thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return it to the Defendant. 2) Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the unjust enrichment 1, 2, 3, 11, 13, and 19 each statement as to the scope of unjust enrichment that the Plaintiff should return to the Defendant. In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s testimony and arguments of the first instance witness A and B from January 2013 to August 2013, 201, the Plaintiff’s person in charge and the Defendant’s person in charge falls under the scope of unjust enrichment 23,274, 371, and 268 of the attached Table “amount subject to restitution” as to the instant execution subject to the scope of each of the instant execution subject to the entrustment.