A. On April 28, 2003, Defendant C entered the D Patent Law Office, the representative of which was D Patent Law Office (hereinafter “instant Patent Office”) as a training patent attorney and entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff.

B. On April 1, 2004, six persons, including the Plaintiff and Defendant C, concluded a partnership agreement with the purport to jointly distribute profits arising from the joint management of the Patent Law Office.

C. From March 2009 to December 201, Defendant C transferred KRW 66,358,349 (hereinafter “instant money”) to Defendant C’s spouse, and the Plaintiff transferred approximately KRW 2,00,000 per month (excluding March 2009, a month excluding Defendant C’s spouse) to Defendant C’s account during the said period.

Defendant C returned to and worked at the Patent Law Office on January 9, 2012, and retired from the Patent Office on June 30, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's claim and judgment

A. As to the loan claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant money is a loan, and sought payment of the instant money to Defendant C, it is difficult to believe it as it is in light of all circumstances such as the relationship with E (E is the Plaintiff’s employee) with the Plaintiff and the confirmation document, and the process of preparation of a fact confirmation document, etc., and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant money is a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan is without merit.

B. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff acquired the instant money without any legal cause, Defendant C is primarily obligated to return it, and Defendant B is primarily obligated to return it.

In this regard, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3.