1. The Defendant’s KRW 560,000,000, and its annual amount from January 17, 2019 to January 31, 2019, and the Plaintiff’s annual amount of KRW 55%.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Judgment by public notice on the basis of recognition (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Part concerning partial dismissal

A. The duty of return of unjust enrichment is an obligation with no fixed due date for performance and the obligor is liable for the “defensive” only when he receives a claim for performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80210, Mar. 13, 2014). In the case of unjust enrichment, a malicious beneficiary is obliged to return the benefit received with “interest” attached thereto and compensate for damages if there is “damage” (see, e.g., Article 748(2) of the Civil Act). As to the bad faith of a beneficiary of unjust enrichment, the burden of proof lies in the assertion that the beneficiary of unjust enrichment is bad faith (see, e.g., Article 748(2) of the Civil Act). Unlike the cases where the beneficiary of unjust enrichment is deemed bad faith under Article 749(2) of the Civil Act, it is insufficient to recognize that his ownership of interest was without any legal cause. In other words,

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da229536, Apr. 12, 2018). When a bona fide beneficiary loses, it shall be deemed a malicious beneficiary from the time the lawsuit was filed to the effect that the beneficiary was acting in good faith (Article 749(2) of the Civil Act). The beneficiary in bad faith shall compensate the beneficiary for any loss incurred by the return with interest added thereto, if any.

(Article 748(2) of the Civil Act. Here, the term “when a possessor or beneficiary has failed” means that the possessor or beneficiary becomes final and conclusive by a final and conclusive judgment against him/her, but this means only that the effect of deeming the possessor or beneficiary in bad faith takes place from time to time, and it does not mean that he/she does not make a claim based on such premise

Therefore, the owner's claim against the possessor for the return of the article and the return of the profit obtained from the use of the article without title can be accepted.