1. The motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 8,829,320 as well as to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant came to know that they were working in the same workplace around May 2015, and they came to know of their personal relations around May 2017.

B. From February 2016 to the above hedge, the Defendant managed the Plaintiff’s benefit passbook. During that period, the amount transferred from the above benefit account to the Defendant’s bank account is KRW 5,243,066.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. First of all, we examine the legitimacy of the motion for intervention by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

The supplementary participation requires that there is a legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit (see Article 71 of the Civil Procedure Act). There is no evidence to view that the supplementary intervenor has a legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the application for intervention in the instant case is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for participation.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s delegation, managed the Plaintiff’s benefit passbook, but terminated the delegation relationship on May 25, 2017 due to the failure of trust. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim is obligated to return KRW 53,294,184, excluding the expenses paid for the Plaintiff out of KRW 1,948,882, out of the amount of KRW 55,243,066, which was transferred from the Plaintiff’s benefit passbook to the management, to the Plaintiff. 2) As delineated below, the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the amount that the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff’s bank account; (b) the amount paid for the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 56,535,264, which was transferred from the Plaintiff’s benefit passbook; and (c) the amount paid for

EF

B. 1) Determination 1) Fact that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 10 (each entry including each number), and considering the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is the rent of the officetel in which the plaintiff resides while managing the plaintiff's benefit passbook. 8,000.