1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part as to Defendant B, which exceeds the following order to pay:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “Nos. 3, 6, and 6” in the first instance judgment No. 7, No. 11, 7, 7, i.e., “A” was removed from “B” in the second instance court’s response to an order to submit financial transaction information to Han Bank Co., Ltd.; and “On the other hand, Defendant B sent a part of the acquisition price of the instant apartment as security No. 110, 110, 1102, and 7, 1102, of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Qa apartment owned by Defendant D, which was loaned on March 19, 2015, to the effect that partially paid the acquisition price of the instant apartment as KRW 798,00,00,000, which was used in purchasing the said apartment under Defendant D’s name; “Nos. 8-1, 2-2, 10, 21-A evidence No. 1, 2-4, 1-A evidence No. 1, 2-2, 1-A. 4, 5-A.

“The Plaintiff’s monthly salary is merely 91,00,000 won 1/13, which is the annual salary under the Plaintiff’s employment contract (Evidence B No. 1) with the Plaintiff, and the amount that the Plaintiff received in excess of the said amount is paid in advance. Thus, even if it constitutes the Plaintiff’s monthly salary, Defendant B is deemed to have a claim for return of unjust enrichment with respect to the Plaintiff. Thus, even if it constitutes the Plaintiff’s monthly salary, Defendant B is deemed to have a claim for return of unjust enrichment with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff. However, under the circumstances where the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant corporation was not confirmed, it is difficult to view that not only the amount actually received by the Plaintiff on the ground that only 91,00,000 won was the Plaintiff’s monthly salary, but also that only 1/130,000 won stated in the above employment contract was the Plaintiff’s monthly salary. The above assertion in Defendant B’s above is without merit.