1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “The same fact alone” under Section 2, Section 2, Section 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “the same fact as the above and evidence No. 2, Section 1, Section 2-3 of the evidence No. 2,” and except for the plaintiff’s additional explanation as to the selective claim added in the trial, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance

【Additional Decision-Making Claim for Damages】 The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay damages amounting to KRW 50 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff, as the Defendant conspired with C and embezzled the amount of KRW 50 million by defraudation or by mistake. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay damages amounting to KRW 50 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's above assertion only with the descriptions of No. 2-1 to No. 3, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

As to the determination of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the defendant upon the request of C to lend the business funds to the defendant who is his/her own partner, but no obligation exists between C and the defendant, as well as no obligation exists between C and the defendant.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 50 million and the delay damages, as the plaintiff paid the debt that C bears to the defendant by mistake.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 50 million without any legal ground, or that the plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the defendant by mistake in her territorial part, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim for loans.