2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a person operating “D” in Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, and Nonparty E is a person operating so-called “D” in the so-called “Smi-Gun,” a person who sells the white paper purchased from the white paper wholesalers to retailers, and the Defendant and E have been engaged in white paper distribution since November 25, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff became aware of Nonparty F’s introduction, and received the profit in return for the provision of 00 U.S. purchase funds to E, and deposited KRW 2,30,830,000 in total over 40 times from December 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015.

C. As above, the Defendant applied KRW 229,30,000 to the Defendant’s payment of the back-to-date claim against the Defendant’s E, and the remainder of KRW 2,101,530,00 to H and I, such as H, I, J, K, and limited liability companies, designated by E upon the Defendant’s request, appears to be the children of E, and the J and K and the limited liability company increased to Korea are in transactions with E.

was remitted to the Corporation.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 and 3, witness E's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In the first place, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the terms that the Defendant would supply the white paper to the white paper retailers if the Plaintiff deposits the white paper into the account under the name of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s total sum of KRW 2,171,50,000 from the first day of November 2014 to June 30, 2015 is recognized as KRW 2,330,830,000, while the amount deposited by the Plaintiff to the account under the name of the Defendant was the sum of KRW 2,171,50,000. However, the Plaintiff asserts that the sum of KRW 2,171,50,000 is the sum of KRW 2,30,00

B. The Plaintiff deposited the amount of KRW 1,670,50,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as a sum of KRW 501,00,000 (=2,171,500,000 - 1,670,500,000), which was paid in excess by the Plaintiff, is obligated to return to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(b).