1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A’s KRW 37,176,986 and its annual 5% from December 5, 2014 to April 5, 2017.

According to the purport of each of the items (including each number) and all of the arguments as to Gap's evidence 1 through 5, it can be recognized as the same facts as the reasons for the claim. A repayment due to a provisional execution is not confirmed, but is based on the condition that the provisional execution declaration or the judgment on the merits be cancelled at the appellate court, and such performance of a claim is delivered by the compulsory execution by the judgment on the declaration of provisional execution, or is not voluntarily delivered or different.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2626, Jan. 19, 1982). In addition, when the judgment on the merits was changed in the appellate court, the provisional execution obligee bears the obligation to return the goods received by the declaration of provisional execution, and to compensate for the damages incurred by the provisional execution or the damages incurred by the provisional execution.

However, the obligation to reinstate and compensate for damages come from the concept of fairness to restore to the same original state as the one in which no provisional execution had been executed, barring special circumstances, a provisional execution creditor shall pay damages for delay at the statutory rate from the date of payment of the money paid and the money paid, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

(2) The Defendants are obligated to pay money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment on December 4, 2014 by the first instance court judgment rendered a provisional execution in Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da104130, Apr. 5, 2017; and Supreme Court Decision 2003Da52944, Feb. 27, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 201Da104130, Apr. 13, 2012). According to the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money to the Plaintiff on December 4, 2014 by a provisional execution judgment in Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ga183190, Apr. 5, 2017; Defendant A is KRW 37,176,986; and Defendant B is served on the complaint of this case from December 5, 2014 to April 5, 2017.