1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming that “The Defendant lent KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff on July 8, 2010,” as the Seogu District Court Branch of Seogu District Court 2015Kadan4690, and that “the Defendant loaned KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff on July 8, 2010.” The Defendant brought a lawsuit claiming payment of KRW 45 million and damages for delay.

B. On April 15, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment accepting the Defendant’s claim in entirety (hereinafter “instant judgment”) on June 24, 2015, in which the Defendant had been served with a duplicate of the complaint of the instant case on April 15, 2015, and the instant judgment became final and conclusive on July 24, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, according to the instant judgment on August 18, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 39,897,930 in the case of Western District Court Branch Branch Decision 2015No. 1181.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 3 and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment on the assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Defendant, around October 2010, received loan amounting to KRW 45 million from the representative director C of the Plaintiff, and did not have any loan claim against the Plaintiff as of July 8, 2010, the Plaintiff had the obligation to return the amount of profit 39,897,930, which was unfairly acquired by the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, by deceiving the court by means of filing a lawsuit with Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch Decision 2015Kadan4690, and thereby, received dividends of KRW 39,897,930.

B. The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, by deceiving the court by deceiving the amount of the judgment money of this case as a loan to the Plaintiff that had already been repaid to the Plaintiff that was extinguished, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, as seen earlier, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 39,897,930 in the Daegu District Court case No. 2015No. 1181 based on the final judgment of this case, and thus, the Defendant has a legitimate right to hold the said amount of dividends.