1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court) handed down on September 18, 2014.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Paragraph (2); and (b) the judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion is added as stated in Paragraph (3). Therefore, it shall be cited including the attached Form pursuant to Article

2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in which the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance “However,” to 15, are as follows.

“However, the Plaintiff, from March 2003 to January 2005, was actually borne by the Plaintiff at KRW 80,349,140, subtracting a loan of KRW 150,00 from KRW 230,349,149 for family agricultural cooperatives repaid by the Defendant from KRW 230,349,149. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, who are the sales cost of KRW 50,00,00, KRW 297,50 (= KRW 123,50,000, KRW 123,50,000 for Defendant’s share of KRW 123,50,000 for Defendant’s share of KRW 123,50,000 for Defendant’s share of KRW 33,349,349,149, KRW 500, KRW 400 for Defendant’s share of KRW 30,50,709, KRW 309,709, KRW 409,7000.

The plaintiff's above-mentioned living expenses claim against the defendant can be recognized that each due date has arrived at the end of each month from August 2003 to January 2005.

Even if the extinctive prescription of the above claim against the plaintiff against the defendant was completed, the claim against the plaintiff for return of unjust enrichment based on the final judgment of this case against the plaintiff is set off in the set-off on the date of arrival of each due date, which is before the extinctive prescription of the above claim for living