1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 and the entire purport of the pleadings:

From July 28, 2014 to March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff served as the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. Around February 2015, the Defendant Company: (a) around February 2015, the Plaintiff’s husband was the representative director, and the Defendant Company: (b) concluded a contract on behalf of the Defendant Company D to pay fees to the Defendant Company; and (c) the said contract includes a customer’s refund request, claim for damages, and claim for compensation.

C. Around November 2015, D Co., Ltd. was faced with a situation in which it was impossible for D to pay the price received from customers at the destination of the travel, to perform the travel contract.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D’s aggravation of financial standing causes trouble in the operation of the Defendant Company due to the customer’s claim, etc. as it failed to perform the travel contract against the customers who concluded the contract through the introduction of the Defendant Company. Accordingly, as the representative director of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company paid the Defendant Company’s travel site companies and Gads to its customers on behalf of the Defendant Company D, and made a decision on the management of the Defendant Company’s request for the refund to the customers who want the refund.

However, as the Defendant Company does not have to pay funds, the Plaintiff paid KRW 53,524,159 in total on behalf of the Defendant Company 22 times from November 2015 to February 3, 2016, as indicated in the “the details of payment” in the attached Table, on behalf of the Defendant Company. The Defendant Company obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount due to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal, and thus, the Defendant Company received the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment. As such, the Defendant Company was the Plaintiff.