1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the Defendants added in the trial and the selective claim against the Defendants.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50,000,000 to the account under the name of Defendant A, the wife of Defendant A on September 30, 2009; the fact that Defendant A returned KRW 35,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the above KRW 50,000,000 on December 4, 2009; and that the fact that Defendant A returned KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 16, 209, including the sum of KRW 35,00,000,000,000 on September 3, 2014, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for a loan or damages amounting to KRW 15,00,000 as the instant lawsuit, Defendant A asserts that the instant lawsuit was unlawful since it was brought in violation of the subordinate agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as it was unlawful.

According to the statements in the evidence No. 2, No. 3-1, and No. 2, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants on June 19, 2014 against the Ulsan District Court 2014Kadan1690, which claimed return of KRW 30,000,000 out of the above remittance amount to the Defendants as unjust enrichment, but the Plaintiff received KRW 5,000,000 from Defendant A on September 3, 2014 and received KRW 5,00,000 from Defendant A on September 5, 2014, and the withdrawal of the said lawsuit on September 5, 2014 can be recognized. However, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff and Defendant A agreed to the subsidiary lawsuit solely on the fact of the above recognition, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

In addition, Defendant A asserts that he did not have a standing to sue against the Plaintiff on the ground that he did not have borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion that he had a standing to sue in a performance lawsuit, and the person who asserted as a performance obligor from the Plaintiff has standing to sue. As such, the existence of standing to sue in itself is not based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, but rather requires that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are the performance obligor or the performance obligor. Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff determined the loan claim, and he lent the above 50,000,000 won to Defendant A, and the Defendants used the above loan as living expenses, etc.