A. On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “instant KRW 1”) to the Defendant on September 14, 2016, with the due date set as KRW 20,000 on September 14, 2016; and on March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff determined and lent KRW 20,000 (hereinafter “instant KRW 2”) to the Defendant on March 14, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant should pay each of the above loans and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

Even if the first and second gold sources of this case are not loans, the defendant is obligated to return the first and second gold sources of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. On March 14, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 50,000,00, including KRW 1 gold, from the Plaintiff and received KRW 20,000 from the Plaintiff on March 14, 2017. This is not a borrowed money from the Plaintiff, who was the captain of a low net trawer C, received a proposal from the Plaintiff, who was the captain of a fishing vessel owned by the Defendant, to illegally cooperate with the fishing operation using a fishing vessel owned by the Defendant on March 14, 2016, and received KRW 50,00,000 as an advance payment from the Plaintiff via the Plaintiff, and even around March 2017, received KRW 20,000,000 as an advance payment for the use of fishing vessels.

Even if the Plaintiff paid KRW 1 and 2 of this case to the Defendant without any legal ground, the said money was paid as advance payment of illegal fishing operations, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek the return thereof to the Defendant pursuant to Article 746 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the payer who paid KRW 1 and 2 of this case, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff received each of the above money from the shipowner C and delivered it to the defendant is not acceptable.

B. In the case of the KRW 1,2, in the name of KRW 1,00,00, KRW 1,000.