1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning for the court's explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment (from No. 6 to the last day of No. 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance) in addition to adding the judgment identical to that of Paragraph 2 with regard to selective claims against Defendant B added in the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. On the other hand, the part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is without merit, and the part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance added " there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants received the above KRW 3 billion with the explicit or implied intent to pay the said KRW 3 billion, and thus, the assertion that the custody agreement, office management, or delegation relation is established is without merit."

C. In a case where the court did not make a substantial judgment on the existence of the claim against promissory note payment, which is a passive claim upon withdrawal, the part of the first instance judgment No. 10 as stated in the first instance judgment, is deemed to have no judicial effect of the claim against set-off in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da3329, Mar. 28, 2013).

2. Determination on selective claims against Defendant B added at the trial of the trial

A. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B paid a total of KRW 32,44.1 million over several occasions under the pretext of medical expenses, expenses, etc. incurred in treating the Plaintiff’s son to the United States.

However, the defendant B, in fact, was confined D to Gohap-Nam, and did not receive treatment from the United States.

Therefore, Defendant B should return the money acquired from the Plaintiff as above to unjust enrichment.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted 32,4410,00 won to the Defendant B over 10 times from July 30, 1999 to June 12, 2001 is as seen earlier.

The plaintiff in the first instance, which corresponds to the above facts of the plaintiff's assertion.