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

Of the instant lawsuit, KRW 3,253,575 related to the return of unjust enrichment and the said lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 12, 2008, the Defendant purchased buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on behalf of the Plaintiff from C to KRW 54,00,000 on behalf of the Plaintiff.

B. On August 1, 201, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D as to the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from September 3, 2011 to September 2, 2013, between the Plaintiff’s name and D, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000, and the lease term of the instant building from September 3, 201 to September 2, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff’s name was written in the down payment column among the instant lease agreement, and affixed the seals affixed to each of the following and lessors

C. D, on August 1, 201, remitted the down payment of KRW 5,000,000 to the national bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 25,000,000 as part of the balance on September 2, 2011, respectively, and the Defendant withdrawn the deposited lease deposit.

D also paid 20,000,000 won to the defendant the remainder of the lease deposit.

On September 2, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 to D on the business that will terminate the instant lease contract, and returned the deposit.

E. 1) The Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the Plaintiff for reimbursement of the lease deposit equivalent to KRW 50,00,000 on behalf of the Plaintiff, who is the lessor of the instant lease agreement, for the reimbursement of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50,00,00,00, and for the subrogation of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming for reimbursement of the deposit amount due to the reimbursement on behalf of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the lease claim”).

B) As to this, the Plaintiff voluntarily consumed the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 that the Defendant received from D as a proxy without paying to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of KRW 50,000,000 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s claim”).

(C) The Defendant asserted that it would offset the claim for reimbursement against the above claim for reimbursement. Accordingly, the Defendant raised an objection for the Plaintiff.