1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought damages related to the division of property, return of unjust enrichment, return of unjust enrichment, and solatium against the Defendant. The court of first instance dismissed the part of the claim for damages related to the division of property or return of unjust enrichment, and partly accepted the remainder of the claim for reimbursement of unjust enrichment and solatium.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the subject of this Court's judgment is limited to the return of unjust enrichment and the claim of consolation money.

2. The following facts in the summary of the case are acknowledged as either of the parties to the dispute or as a whole by considering the whole purport of the pleading in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 3 to 6, 9 to 11.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant married on June 12, 1998 and divorced on February 10, 2009.

B. During the marriage period with the Plaintiff, the Defendant gave birth to CB and EB between the Plaintiff and the other male.

(hereinafter referred to as the above two children of this case) C.

The Plaintiff considered the instant children to be pro-friendly and brought up together with the Defendant until September 2007, and paid the Defendant child support from May 12, 2009 to January 15, 201, which was subsequent to the divorce with the Defendant.

On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of denial of paternity against the instant child on January 23, 2014 against the Seoul Family Court Decision 2013Ddan52281, and was sentenced to the said child’s denial of paternity on January 23, 2014. The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 28, 2014.

3. Claim for return of unjust enrichment for child support;

A. According to Gap evidence No. 5, the plaintiff transferred a total of KRW 84,907,00 on 42 occasions from May 12, 2009 to January 15, 201, which was after the divorce with the defendant, to the account under the name of the defendant as shown in the following table. The plaintiff claims that the whole amount was paid as the child support of the child of this case, while the defendant asserts that some of them were stated in the column of "the defendant's assertion" as stated below.