1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: “This decision” in the first instance court’s judgment “from the fifth to the sixth second to the sixth to the fifth and the sixth judgment of the first instance court’s judgment” is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment inasmuch as the part of “decision on the Defendant’s assertion” is the same as the entry of the reasoning of the first instance court’s judgment, except in cases where it is re-written as follows in the first instance court’s judgment under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part 1 of the defendant's argument that is re-written at the trial court: KRW 376,466,414, which the defendant received by the defendant, is either voluntarily returned the proceeds acquired by the plaintiff's occupational breach of trust to the defendant or voluntarily repaid his liability for damages caused by the illegal act; thus, the defendant does not have a duty to return the above money to the plaintiff; 2) The amount that the defendant received by the defendant through the order of the relevant judgment does not have a duty to return the money to the plaintiff; 180,000,000, which the defendant received by the order of the provisional seizure of the plaintiff's claim for payment of deposit based on the original copy of the relevant judgment of this case and the order

In addition, in a case where a provisional execution sentence becomes invalidated due to the change of a judgment on the merits after the Defendant received the entire amount under the name of debt, the Defendant’s judgment on the instant judgment on the provisional execution sentence, and received the entire amount under the order, the entire amount of the above money was executed by the Plaintiff’s execution of the Plaintiff’s claim, and thus, it should be deemed that the payment performed by the Plaintiff was the same as the payment performed by the Plaintiff. It is obvious that the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the total amount of the above claim

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da38812 delivered on January 15, 1993). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.