1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's assertion was the plaintiff's cosmetic operated by the plaintiff.

From November 6, 2012 to March 16, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 23,300,000 to the Defendant. On May 3, 2013, the Plaintiff wired KRW 3,600,896 to the Defendant’s account used by the Defendant.

Since the Plaintiff only returned the membership balance to the Defendant’s customers at the wind of the Defendant’s own withdrawal, the Defendant should return KRW 1,590,301 out of the benefits received from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above borrowed amount of KRW 23,300,00,000, and to return unjust enrichment of KRW 5,191,197 (i.e., KRW 3,600,896, KRW 1,590,301). Of them, the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of the remainder of KRW 24,297,680, which remains after deducting KRW 4,193,517, which shall be paid to the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

The Defendant had obtained stable income by obtaining recognition of Defendant’s ability, such as receiving the amount of KRW 8,094,792 on September 5, 2012, KRW 4,959,365 on October 5, 2012, and KRW 7,395,684 on May 5, 199, while serving as a beauty artist in the Plaintiff’s beauty shop “E” located in the Plaintiff’s beauty shop. However, the Defendant received KRW 20,00,000 from the Plaintiff on the pretext of expenses for the scarg, instead of giving up the said income.

In addition, the remainder that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff constitutes the payment that the Defendant settled the profits earned from the sales of the Defendant.

The defendant was unilaterally dismissed by the plaintiff, on the ground that the artist who had been employed by the plaintiff demanded to present the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant does not bear any obligation against the plaintiff.

Judgment

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff operated a cosmetic cosmetic cosmetic from Goyang-gu, Youngyang-si (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff cosmetic cosmetic”), and the Defendant is located in the Soyang-gu, Goyang-si by November 2012.