(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.6.20.선고 2012나90452 판결

2. Based on the selective claim added at the trial, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointor each corresponding amount stated in the principal damage column in the list of final claims in the attached Form No. 2007.

7. From 30. to June 20, 2013, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The remaining selective claims of the plaintiffs (designated parties) and the designated parties are dismissed.

4. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The defendant (the appointed party, hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and the appointed party shall have the final claim in attached Form.

In the list, each amount recorded in the column for principal damage and the amount related thereto from July 30, 2007 to May 2013 of this case.

22. The delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim shall be 5% per annum and the next day.

Until the date of full payment, 20% interest per annum shall be paid. (The plaintiff and the designated parties shall be the first.)

Claim for damages caused by a tort, and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment and the agreed amount at the trial.

The claim was selectively added, and the plaintiff and the designated parties are entitled to any damages for delay at the trial.

The purpose of the claim was to expand the claim amount in relation to sperm Kim Kim-nam, Kim ○, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee Jong-young, and Park Young-young.

High, Appointer J. J. J. J. S. S. S.O., Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim Ma○, G. M. S. S., Park ○, and S. S. S. accommodation:

○○, leappos, ○○, Lee Young-hee, Lee Young-hee, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee Dong-dong, ○○, Cho Jong-hee, Cho Jong-hee, ○○, and red ○○

The statement reduces the claim amount with respect to the claim amount.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff and the designated parties shall be revoked. The request of the plaintiff and the designated parties shall be made.

The dismissal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in each of the statements in Gap1 to 47 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1 and Eul evidence 5-2:

A. 1) A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "C") is a company aimed at multi-level marketing, such as health and food sales business, and Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant B") is a company that engages in door-to-door sales business. 2) On October 30, 2003, E was a director and a representative director of the Defendant company after the incorporation of the Defendant Company. However, the Korea Special Financial Cooperative was instructed to separate the multi-level marketing business and door-to-door sales business from multi-level marketing business on July 14, 2005.

26. Each registration of change to H was made on May 25, 2006, and even after resignation from office on May 25, 2006, Defendant Company was substantially operated through F, G, H, etc.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the designated parties concluded a door-to-door sales contract under which the Defendant Company visits and sells goods supplied by the Defendant Company to consumers and receives prescribed allowances from the Defendant Company.

B. 1) The Defendant Company’s business organization, business system, etc. established 62 branch offices in Gangnam-gu, Busan, Gwangju, Incheon, Daejeon, and Daegu to operate 62 branch offices across the country. On April 2005, the 57 branch offices were closed and thereafter operated 57 branch offices. Each of the branch offices is a subdivision of the headquarters for policy delivery, public relations, supervision, etc. of the headquarters. The head of the branch office and employees issued by the headquarters were in charge of the affairs such as management of the headquarters, management of the company’s image, number of new sales office, sales office, and new sales office with the representative of the center authorized by the head office. Each center received 60% of the sales amount from the head office as expense for monthly sales (3.5% or 5% of the sales amount) and received 60% of the sales amount from the head office from the Defendant Company to the same sales office (20% of the sales amount). The Defendant Company’s representative of the 30 branch office was not affiliated with the Defendant Company’s sales office.

3) At the headquarters C in each month, E held inquiries in the presence of C and all employees of the Defendant Company, and upon entering into a business agreement around July 2005, C and the Defendant Company managed only computer and sales, and C actually managed other overall affairs.

C. C and Defendant Company’s position and compensatory franchise 1) The sales grade of LD) EBC C are eight levels, including LD (D) EX C & C, LU’s (RU) LAC C and DY (DY). In order to join C’s sales position, their cumulative purchase performance should be 300,000 DV ('Dynas V)’s V ('Dynaty V') to pay allowances, and members (DT) are merely members (DT) of C in the case of less than that performance, and members (DD) can not be paid more than five percent of purchase allowances under their direct title, but may not be paid more than five percent of purchase allowances.

2) E: (a) around 204, as the management situation has deteriorated due to the continuous decline of C. 1; (b) around 30,000, it decided to introduce the co-ownership marketing conducted at the high-tier network, etc.; (c) around October 204, it becomes a first-stage member if it purchases 30,000 goods and then purchases 120,000 DV goods; (c) the first-stage member would be a second-stage member if it purchases 1,000 won goods, and (d) the first-stage member would be a third-stage member if it purchases 1,00,000 won or less after the third-stage member was 1,000 won or less; (d) the first-stage member would be a first-stage member if it was 1,50,000 won or less; and (e) the first-stage member would have changed its sales volume to 4,000 won or less.

4) The C head office education marketing team explained the marketing and compensation franchise of this case to each center through the Internet broadcasting and satellite broadcasting, and each center explained the marketing and compensation franchise to the salespersons through the project explanation session. At the time, the instructors of each center did not distinguish between C and the Defendant, and explained the instant marketing and compensation franchises by linking them.

D. The recruitment of new sales members of Defendant Company C and the recruitment of new sales members of Defendant Company 1 is conducted mainly by holding a presentation meeting for business among the persons invited by each Center 0. The presentation meeting is conducted by the chairperson or educational members of each Center based on the prospectus or basic lectures distributed at its head office to add know-hows related to sales. As above, the presentation meetings held by each Center include 20,000 members and 5,000 members and 6,00 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,000 members and 6,00.

E. According to the laws and regulations regarding multi-level marketing business, C mainly sold health food, etc. as the sales amount is limited to not more than 1,300,000 won. The Defendant Company, which had no such restriction, sold relatively high-priced silver, dubs, dubs, tea, etc.) goods sold by the Defendant Company, was limited to 16% of the sales price. The sales price of certain goods sold by the Defendant Company was set forth in the following table.

3) The sales clerks of the Defendant Company did not have interest in the performance, quality, or price of the purchased goods. In general, most sales clerks do not individually select the goods in ordering the goods, but if they refer to the amount of money they could invest to the head of the Center, etc., they ordered the goods determined in consideration of the amount of investment.

4) On the other hand, in the case of purchasing goods from the Defendant Company, most of the sales clerks received goods from the Defendant Company, on the other hand, not for the actual purchase of goods, but for the acquisition of points from the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company prepared an order contract by inserting most of the goods into the “door Address Address” column without receiving the goods, and received an amount equivalent to 5% of the value of the goods by resale through each Center through each Center (the so-called “the so-called “proble white allowances” or “judicial allowances”). 5% of the sales proceeds from the Defendant Company’s funds from 205 and 206 to November 30, 2006; 1.3% of the sales proceeds from the Defendant Company’s funds from 2005 to 2006 to 30% of the sales proceeds from the Defendant Company’s funds, and 1.5% of the sales proceeds from other sales proceeds from the Defendant Company’s funds and 28.7% of the sales proceeds from the Defendant Company’s funds and 378.

6) There was no particular import source other than the sale of all the Defendant Company and C.

바. E의 형사처벌 E은 " C, 피고 회사의 회원 관리, 센터 및 지사 관리 등 업무를 총괄하던 지○영, C이사이자 피고 회사의 전 대표이사인 G, 상품부문 이사인 오○성, 경영전략부문 이사인 도○무 등과 공모하여 2005. 1. 20. 경부터 2007. 4. 경까지 사이에 서울 강남구 역삼동 642 - 10 소재 C 본사, 같은 동 642 - 5 소재 피고 회사 본사 및 6개 지사, 57개 지역센터 사무실에서, C의 다단계판매원 및 피고 회사의 방문판매원으로 순차 등록하고자 하는 원고들에게, 사실은 피고 회사가 판매원들에게 판매하는 물품은 저가의 조악한 물품이고, 위 회사의 수당 지급 구조는 하위 판매원들로부터 물품 구입비 명목으로 받는 금원 대부분을 고스란히 상위 판매원들의 수익 배당금, 각종 수당, 직원 급여 등에 지출하는 형태이며, 하위 판매원들에게 고액의 수익 배당금을 지급할 정도의 자산이나 수익 사업체가 없기 때문에 단기간 내 상당한 수익의 실현이 불가능하였으며, 투자자들의 무한 확대가 이루어지지 않는 한 판매원들에게 지급될 수당 금액이 떨어지게 되고, 그러한 경우 회사 매출도 감소하다가 결국 중단되어 필연적으로 수당 지급을 중단할 수밖에 없는 상황으로, 판매원들인 피해자들로부터 물품 구입비 명목으로 금원을 교부받더라도 고액의 수익배당금을 지급할 의사나 능력이 없음에도 불구하고, 위와 같은 사실을 숨긴 채 오히려 적극적으로 ' 피고 회사는 품질은 우수한데 판로가 없어서 특수마케팅으로 유통을 할 수밖에 없는 벤처기업, 중소기업 제품을 판매하는데, 생산자와 소비자를 직접 연결시켜 유통비용 없이 판매함으로써 고수익을 창출하고, 레저사업 , 전원주택사업, 바나나스윙 체인점 사업, 통신사업 등 다양한 수익사업체도 운영하여 고수익을 창출한 다음, 이를 판매원들에게 수당으로 지급하는 회사다. 전국에 200만 명 이상의 활동 회원을 확보하고 있어 월 2, 500억 원 이상의 매출이 안정적으로 발생하고 있다. 벤처기업 등 제품 판매와 관련하여 통상의 다단계업체처럼 거리에 나가 판매할 필요 없이 소비하는 것만으로도 이익을 창출할 수 있다. 수익사업과 관련하여 무선통 신사업은 SK텔레콤, LG텔레콤, KTF 등 이동통신 3사와 제휴하고 있고, 유선통신사업 , 즉 인터넷망 사업은 2005년 기준 400여개 업체에 서비스를 제공하여 한국통신 국제전화 시장의 60 % 이상을 장악하고 있다. 대표이사 E은 부시 미국 대통령이 인정할 만큼 믿을만한 사람이고, 한국특수판매공제조합에 가입되어 있어 제도적인 보장도 받을 수 있다. 100만 DV를 부여받는 물품을 구입하여 1점을 획득할 때마다 토, 일요일 및 공휴일을 제외하고 매일 1만 원씩 2, 500, 000원의 수당을 틀림없이 지급한다. 1만 원은 수학적으로 얘기하는 고정 값이다. 고수익 창출을 통한 수당 지급은 영속적이어서 100년, 200년이 지나도 계속되고, 일정 비율로 재충전 ( 재구매 ) 만 계속 해주면 평생 수당을 받을 수 있고, 상속도 가능하다. 기존에 투자한 판매원들처럼 월 3, 000만 원 이상의 수익을 올리도록 해주겠다 ' 고 거짓말하여 이에 속은 원고 및 선정자들을 포함한 총 28, 823명으로부터 물품 구입비 명목으로 합계 금 2, 050, 633, 762, 900원을 교부받아 이를 편취하고, 허위 또는 과장된 사실을 알리고 기만적 방법을 사용하여 위 28, 823명으로부터 물품 구입비 명목 및 다단계판매원, 방문판매원 등록 및 자격 유지 조건으로 소정의 금원을 교부받고, 위와 같은 28, 823명으로부터 다단계판매원 등록 또는 자격유지의 조건으로 연간 5만 원 이상의 부담을 지게하고, 방문판매원이 되기 위한 조건 또는 방문판매원의 자격을 유지하기 위한 조건으로서 연간 2만 원 이상의 재화를 구매하게 하는 등 의무를 부과하였다 " 는 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반 ( 사기 ), 방문판매등에관한법률위반의 범죄사실로 기소되었는데 ( 서울중앙지방법원 2007고합525호 ), 위 법원은 2007. 10. 30. E에게 징역 9년을 선고하였고, 이에 대하여 E과 검사가 항소하였으나 서울고등법원은 2008. 2. 20. 2007노2567호로 E과 검사의 항소를 모두 기각하였으며, 다시 E이 상고하였으나 대법원은 2008. 6. 12. 2008도2236호로 위 상고를 기각하였다 .

G. The Plaintiff and the designated parties paid each amount indicated in the column of the sales amount in the list of final claims in the attached Form C and the Defendant Company as purchase price for the goods, and received each corresponding amount from C and the Defendant Company as indicated in the column of the amount of the receipt allowance in the same list of the same list of claims, such as direct sales allowance, resale allowance, etc., due to the tort of this case.

(h) Insolvency of a sales market allowance, etc. and closure of a defendant company;

Since around November 16, 2007, the Defendant Company discontinued its business as it was unable to pay a direct sales commission, etc. to the salespersons including the Plaintiff and the designated parties. On May 31, 2007, the Defendant Company reported the closure of business to all the branch offices around May 31, 2007 and reported the closure of business to the headquarters around November 16, 2007.

I. Defendant Company filed a lawsuit to revoke the return of value-added tax and the disposition of refusal of correction from April 2006 to April 2007, and filed a return and payment of each value-added tax with six chief of the regional tax office, etc. from January 2006 to January 2007, but at around March 16, 2009, six chief of the regional tax office, etc. filed a claim for correction of the value-added tax with respect to each of the above goods purchased by Defendant Company from 145, 593, 218, 687 won among the value-added tax that was imposed from January 1, 2006 to January 2007, and the head of the regional tax office and the head of the regional tax office were merely taking the form of sale and purchase of the goods to attract investment funds without actual trading of the goods under the Value-Added Tax Act. Accordingly, each of the Defendant Company purchased the goods from 2008 to 2008.

7. Each of the above requests for a tax appeal against a disposition rejecting the above correction, but the Tax Tribunal has made a request for a tax appeal.

3. 9. The Defendant Company dismissed all the Defendant Company’s appeal on the ground that the act of selling the goods to multi-stage salesmen constitutes a transaction subject to value-added tax on the grounds that the form of transaction between the Defendant Company and the salesperson is somewhat different from that of ordinary commercial transactions.

3) Accordingly, on June 4, 2010, the Defendant Company: (a) sold at low price most of the goods sold by the Defendant Company against six chief of the tax office, including the head of the regional tax office, etc. (hereinafter “the instant transaction”); and (b) sold them at low price; (c) it is impossible to sell them at low price; and (d) the selling price is 10 to 20 times the purchase price purchased by the Defendant Company; (c) the said sales price was purchased solely for the purpose of receiving allowances without intent to use or consume the instant goods; (d) the Defendant Company promised to pay a certain amount of allowances; (e) the Plaintiff Company recruited investors while receiving allowances; and (e) the investors also invested in the expected amount of investment to receive allowances; and (e) accordingly, (e) the instant transaction was made in the form of sales in order to pretend the supply of the goods; and (e) the Plaintiff paid investment funds to the Plaintiff; and (e) accordingly, (e) accordingly, (e) the Seoul Administrative Court filed a corrective disposition of refusal to revoke the supply of the goods.

4) On February 23, 2012, the aforementioned court rendered a judgment ordering revocation of each of the above corrective refusal dispositions on the grounds that the instant transaction was conducted in the form of trading in order to pretend the supply of goods, and its substance is merely a de facto monetary transaction that attracting investment funds through the instant goods and paying investment allowances accordingly. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a supply of goods subject to value-added tax, and the subsequent judgment was rendered on November 23, 2012, by six chief of the tax office, including the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 201279422), but on November 23, 2012, the above appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive thereafter.

5) Accordingly, on January 15, 2013, Korea deposited the total amount of KRW 157,428,28,228,696 of the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013, No. 2013, No. 902 of the same court; No. 903 of the same court; No. 905 of the same court in 2013; No. 906 of the same court in 2013; and No. 906 of the same court in 2013; and No. 912 of the same court in 2013.

2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. The assertion

A door-to-door sales contract concluded by the Defendant Company with the Plaintiff and the designated parties is null and void as an anti-social juristic act contrary to the mandatory regulations such as Article 3 and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Door-to-Door Sales Act (amended by Act No. 7795 of Dec. 29, 2005, Jan. 19, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Door-to-Door Sales Act”), Article 23(2) of the former Act on the Regulation on the Act on the Conduct of Conducting Similar-Door Sales (amended by Act No. 6105 of Jan. 12, 200; hereinafter referred to as the “former Act on the Regulation of Conducting Similar-Door Sales”) and thus, the Defendant Company is null and void as an act contrary to the concept of justice and other unlawful acts, which causes or encourages the purchase of goods, and thus is not able to pay allowances under the name of the Plaintiff’s good public order, and thus, the Defendant Company is not obligated to pay allowances under Article 13 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

1) Article 3 of the former Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission or Approval under the related Acts and subordinate statutes provides that "the act of receiving investment money by promising to pay the whole amount of investment or an amount exceeding it in the future" as one of the acts of receiving investment money without permission under Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the same Act. Thus, the legislative intent of regulating fund-raising business without permission or approval under the related Acts and subordinate statutes lies in protecting good traders and establishing a sound financial order. Thus, in light of the meaning of the term "investment" under the legislative intent or the Regulation of Regulation on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, it is difficult to regard the revenue of the fund whose transaction has been mediated in substance as the revenue of the fund, and thus, it can be viewed as an act of receiving money without permission under the Act only if it can be viewed as having been received only without the transaction of the goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7470, Jan. 25, 2007).

However, in light of the above-mentioned facts and evidence, the Defendant Company: (a) was merely a sales agent, including the Plaintiff and the designated parties, to whom the sales price was lower than 6 times the sales price; and (b) sold relatively high-priced goods at the sales price determined by the Defendant Company’s 20 times the sales price (only 1.16% of the average sales price of the pertinent goods); and (c) was paid for 5% of the sales price of the goods purchased from the Defendant Company under the circumstances that the sales agent would have been selling the goods again; and (d) it is difficult to view that the instant sales agent’s price for the goods traded among the Defendant Company and the sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales agent’s sales of the goods.

2) Meanwhile, in a case where a specific legal provision provides for the prohibition of a juristic act under a certain private law, whether a juristic act committed in violation of the provision is null and void, or whether the court refuses to assist the realization of the contents of a juristic act or to restrict its effect with any other content, is part of the matter concerning the legal effect within the broad sense of the relevant legal provision, and as in other cases, it is determined by the interpretation of the relevant legal provision. In addition, if there is a express provision on this point, it must be naturally followed, and if there is no such provision, it shall be determined by the examination of whether the invalidation or restriction of the juristic act against it is required in light of the purpose and meaning of the relevant monetary provision (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da75119, Dec. 23, 2010).

However, the act of receiving goods only through a multi-level marketing organization is a kind of financial fraud, causing a large number of victims, causing a large social problem, such as the damage amount, and it constitutes a violation of the legislative purpose (Article 1) of the Act on the Regulation of Temporary Collection of Goods, which intends to protect good traders and establish a sound financial order by regulating the act of receiving goods without permission, and the damage therefrom can be inflicted on both salespersons and the people. Thus, it is difficult to achieve the legislative purpose of the Act on the Regulation of Temporary Collection of Goods, by simply prohibiting such act and imposing administrative sanctions or penalties, it is highly likely to cause such act to be committed. In light of Article 58(1)4 and Article 24(1)1 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; Article 58(1)1 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 113200, Feb. 17, 2012).

Therefore, the door-to-door sales contract between the plaintiff and the designated parties that caused the instant transaction and the defendant company is null and void in violation of the above mandatory provisions. As such, the defendant company is obligated to return each amount recorded in the column for principal damage in the list of the final claim in the balance sheet, which is the balance after deducting the amount paid as allowances, etc. from the amount received from the plaintiff and the selected parties for the purchase of goods under the door-to-door sales contract.

3. Judgment on the argument of the defendant company

(a) Claim on the partial termination of the obligation to reinstate by agreement;

The defendant company asserted that the 11 person, including the plaintiff and the selected person's lecture, senior beneficiary, Kim Jong-hee, Park Jong-jin, Yangjin, Lee Ho-jin, Lee Ho-jin, Lee Ho-jin, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee ○, Lee ○○, Lee ○, Lee ○-o, etc., had no damage since his scores, which served as the basis for the payment of allowances from the defendant company, were extinguished by converting them into Ma○○○○, and thus, there is no further evidence to acknowledge them. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. The above argument by the defendant company is without merit.

B. Claim for the completion of extinctive prescription

The obligation to return unjust enrichment due to the invalidity of the door-to-door Sales Contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company constitutes a commercial claim and a debt, and five-year commercial prescription period. The time when the victims including the Plaintiff and the designated parties enter into the door-to-door Sales Contract with the Defendant Company is from January 2005 to January 20, 2007

1. The defendant company's obligation to return unjust enrichment by receiving money from the victims for the purchase of goods at that time. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed on May 23, 2012, which was five years after the expiration of the commercial prescription period, the defendant company's obligation to return unjust enrichment upon the invalidity of the above door-to-door sales contract was extinguished by prescription. The company's act is presumed to have been for its business unless there is counter-proof, and the company's act for its business is deemed to be a commercial activity (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da2064, Oct. 31, 1967). Thus, the above door-to-door sales contract concluded between the defendant company and the plaintiff and the designated parties constitutes a commercial activity. However, even if the above door-to-door sales contract constitutes a commercial activity, it is reasonable to view that the contract constitutes a claim for return of unjust enrichment by law, not a juristic act, which is invalid or cancelled, and it is reasonable to deem that there is no need to promptly resolve the prescription period of 20 years or 10 years.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant company on the premise that the statute of limitations is applicable to the claim for return of unjust enrichment based on the invalidity of the above door-to-door sales contract.

The defendant company is not able to respond to the claims of the plaintiff and the designated parties until the goods of each item in the name of goods in the quantity corresponding to the purchase quantity of each item in the separate sheet of transaction issued by the plaintiff and the designated parties under the above door-to-door sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the "goods of this case").

The statements in the evidence Nos. 14-1 through 325 alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the designated parties purchased each of the goods of this case from the defendant company and received them normally, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, in the case where the sales clerks of the defendant company including the plaintiff and the designated parties purchase the goods at the defendant company, most of the goods are received, while the defendant company's purchase of the goods is intended not to actually purchase the goods but to receive the allowances for acquiring the points, so most of the goods are not to receive the goods from the defendant company, and the defendant company's contract was prepared by inserting the name of the affiliated center into the "door Address Address" column by inserting most of the goods into the place of the competent center, and then again, the fact that the plaintiff and the designated parties received the "amount equivalent to 5% of the value of the goods" or "judicial allowances" through each center, and there is no reason to view such transaction as having been made in the form of a trade to supply the goods, and therefore, the actual payment of the goods is merely a transaction of the money of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay legal interest or delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 30, 2007 to June 20, 2013, which is the date when the plaintiff's claim was rendered, to the plaintiff and the designated parties, and after the payment date of each of the above money in the list of final claims in attached Form No. 1 as unjust enrichment. Since the defendant company's objection to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay damages is a considerable amount of objection against the defendant company from December 30, 207 to June 20, 2013, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the next day of full payment, the selective claim for return of unjust enrichment in this case by the plaintiff and the designated parties was based on the reasons within the above recognition scope, and the remainder of the claim for return of unjust enrichment in this case was accepted on the ground of tort, but the court of first instance accepted the claim for return of unjust enrichment in this case's judgment.