2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiffs are corporations established by E for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, and distributing bank supplies around 1987.

Defendant C is a protocol of E, and Defendant D is a wife of Defendant C.

B. Defendant C served as the head of the logistics center located in Kimpo-si from September 1989 to July 2015 (hereinafter “instant logistics center”) and has been in charge of the storage and delivery of the bank supplies produced and imported by the Plaintiffs.

C. From February 2010 to July 2014, Defendant D received benefits of KRW 16,995,000 in total from Plaintiff A and KRW 47,520,870 in total from Plaintiff B during the said period as a full-time employee who entered into an employment contract with Plaintiff B from June 1, 2013 to July 12, 2014.

(hereinafter, the benefits received by Defendant D are referred to as “instant benefits”). D.

Defendant D retired from the Plaintiff Company B on July 12, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion is that Defendant C had a comprehensive personnel authority while working as the head of the logistics center of this case, and Defendant D was registered as a daily worker or a regular employee of the logistics center of this case, and there was no actual provision of labor. Defendant D was obligated to return the benefits of this case to the plaintiffs without any legal ground. Defendant C was obligated to return the benefits of this case to the plaintiffs in unjust enrichment. Defendant C had the plaintiffs pay the benefits to the defendant D without concealing such fact, even though it was not having received labor from the defendant C. This constitutes a tort, which constitutes compensation for damages or as a person who received economic benefits together, and is obligated to pay and return the amount equivalent to the benefits of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant D