1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the judgment as to the set-off defense added by the defendant in this court, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of set-off

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion argues that the outstanding amount remains due to mistake in the year 2013, and that 61,758,000 won that was remitted to the Plaintiff in the year 2014 was unjust by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant set off the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff against the defendant on an equal amount with the claim for payment of goods against the plaintiff.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff obtained an unjust benefit equivalent to KRW 61,758,000 from the Defendant.

As seen earlier, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant explicitly designated the obligation to repay the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff by specifying the date on which the Plaintiff was supplied; (b) in particular, from January 3, 2014 to June 26, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 61,758,000 in total by specifying that the Defendant would repay the outstanding amount to the “ obligation to repay the outstanding amount of the land supplied in the year 2013”; and (c) it is difficult to view that the Defendant did not have the obligation to repay the outstanding amount in the year 2013 at the time of paying the outstanding amount by designating the repayment of the outstanding amount in the year 2013, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as unjust enrichment against the Defendant’s will.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on the different premise is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.