1. The part against the Defendants, which exceeds the following part of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment on this part of the basic facts is as follows, except for dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Paragraph 1(e) of the first instance judgment shall be raised as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

E. At the time of entering into the instant transfer agreement and lease agreement, the Plaintiff delivered the instant land and buildings, and machinery, office fixtures, etc. listed in the attached Table 1 list inside the instant building (hereinafter “instant machinery, etc.”) to the Defendants.

F. The Plaintiff previously held the instant equity shares, the instant phone and the Internet phone, while running the instant business. However, according to the instant transfer agreement, the Plaintiff changed the instant equity shares, the phone and the Internet phone in the name of Defendant B.

G. On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Nonghyup Bank account in the name of Defendant C.

Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance [Evidences 1 through 4, 6, 10, 11] of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be written with "Evidences 1 through 4, 6, 11" among the grounds for recognition.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s transfer agreement and lease agreement of this case were cancelled or terminated on the grounds of the non-payment of the transfer price and the delinquency in rent of Defendant C, and accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants as follows.

1) Since there was no reason for the Plaintiff to pay the instant money, there was no reason to seek restitution of unjust enrichment against Defendant C. 2) As a result of the rescission of the transfer agreement of this case, the paper and stuffs, etc. listed in the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land, etc.”) should be returned to the original state due to the cancellation of the transfer agreement of this case. However, Defendant B cannot return the instant land, etc. while running its business, and thus, it sought payment of KRW 66,561,229, a considerable market value.

3. The instant equity shares, telephone, and Internet changed in the name of Defendant B due to the cancellation of the instant transfer agreement.