1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

3.A petition filed by this court.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the basic fact amounting to KRW 5,000,000 on November 1, 2015, and KRW 9,000,000 on December 19, 2015, and KRW 14,00,00,000 on December 19, 2015 is no dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (Cause of Claim) (1) The Plaintiff lent the above KRW 14,00,000 to the Defendant, and sought the return of the loan by serving the duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 14,000,000 won and damages for delay.

(2) Preliminaryly, the Defendant was provided with the above KRW 14,00,000 from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and thus, the Defendant sought the payment of the above money and the damages for delay as a return of unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (citing a counterclaim) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to sell the agricultural machinery owned by the Defendant in KRW 50,000,000,000, and received the said KRW 14,000,000 as a sum of the down payment and the sales amount. The Defendant did not pay the remainder of the sales amount of KRW 36,00,000.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the remaining purchase and sale amount of KRW 36,000,000 and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred the above KRW 14,00,000 to the Defendant as in the above basic facts is recognized, but this fact alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s lending.

In addition, with respect to whether the said money was transferred without any legal cause as the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion, the health care team did not provide any assertion as to the specific requirements for return of unjust enrichment other than the above remittance, and according to the evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the police sent the money transferred by the plaintiff on January 10, 2016 to the plaintiff's children and the defendant for the rent of money and machinery. In light of these circumstances and facts, it is found that the police sent the money to the plaintiff on January 10, 2016.