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

A. On March 8, 2010, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant without setting the due date for repayment as 1% per month interest.

In full view of each statement in Gap evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the bank account under the defendant's name on March 8, 2010. However, the statement in Gap evidence No. 7 and the witness Eul's testimony that the above money was paid as a loan, are not trustable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine the remaining points.

B. The Plaintiff’s preliminary determination as to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is that: (a) the Defendant: (b) was awarded a bid jointly with the Plaintiff for 2,185 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (c) was paid the said KRW 16,957,081 from the Plaintiff as the sale price of the instant real estate; and (d) was unjust enrichment by failing to use the said KRW 16,957,081 as the sale price; and (b) thereafter, when the said real estate was sold again to a third party, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 32,541,246 out of the sale price to the Plaintiff; and (b) thus, (c) was unjust enrichment by failing to pay the said KRW 32,541,246 to the Plaintiff, which is the sum of each said money (= 16,957,081 won).

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statements in Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9, the plaintiff shall, upon the introduction of the defendant on Nov. 13, 2006, lend to E 2.5% interest rate of KRW 400 million, and the repayment on Jan. 13, 2007, respectively. The fact that the plaintiff was granted a right to collateral security on the real estate of this case owned by E, the plaintiff started the voluntary auction procedure on the real estate of this case to Chuncheon District CourtF under the condition that only 50,000,00 won out of the above loans were repaid by E, the plaintiff and the defendant on Mar. 1, 2010.