1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff transferred from the account of the corporation C (hereinafter "the corporation of this case") to the defendant's account on September 1, 2004, and on March 10, 2006, KRW 500,000,000 to the defendant's account. It is suspected that this is a bribe, and the plaintiff is one shareholder of the company of this case, the liquidation procedure of which was completed on December 2, 2007. Thus, the plaintiff was changed to KRW 20,00,100 to the plaintiff for the purpose of trying to be tried as a sole case, and the plaintiff did not enter the grounds for the claim about KRW 7,00,100,000, which is the difference.

this article argues that there is a duty to return for unjust enrichment.

According to the evidence No. 1, the company of this case was dissolved by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on September 12, 2007, and the registration of the completion of liquidation was completed on December 17, 2007. However, even if the registration of the completion of liquidation was completed on February 17, 2007, it continues to exist as a liquidation corporation within the scope of the liquidation affairs unless the liquidation affairs are completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da6427, 7371, Feb. 11, 2003). If the company of this case had the above claims, the company of this case still remains as a liquidation corporation.

In addition, the stock company and the shareholders can not be the same person as the existence of a separate corporate entity. This is the same as in the case of a single shareholder. Thus, the above claim shall not be deemed to belong to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the above claim is reverted to the plaintiff is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.