Although the defendant did not have registered the opening of a brokerage office with a competent authority, he/she was paid 40 million won (5 million won on September 27, 2006; 5 million won on October 25, 2006; 20 million won on October 3, 2006; 3 million won on September 20, 2006; 3 million won on September 20, 2006; 40 million won on September 27, 2006; 5 million won on October 2, 2006; 70,000 won on October 3, 2006; 2 million won on October 3, 2006; 2 million won on October 3, 2006; 1.5 million won on October 27, 2006; 1.5 million won on June 27, 2006; and 20 million won on May 15, 2006).

1) On July 21, 2006, the purchase of the land under paragraph (1) of the above paragraph on September 27, 2006, 2006, 3) on November 16, 2006, 4) the land under paragraph (1) of the above paragraph, 3) on September 26, 2006, by means of net City/Do D and its ground buildings, 4) on November 16, 2006

2. Determination on a claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. According to the above legal principles and the above facts, the above 85 million won was received pursuant to an invalid payment agreement, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 85 million won to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment as return of unjust enrichment. The defendant is obligated to pay 85 million won to the plaintiff, as unjust enrichment.

3. The defendant asserts that since each of the above money was paid at will by the plaintiff with knowledge of the fact that the plaintiff did not have an obligation, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim seeking the return, but the provisions of Article 742 of the Civil Code concerning the repayment of debt did not exist.