The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The independent party intervenor's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

An appeal is filed;

The claims of the principal and the independent party intervenor shall be examined together.

On December 2, 2013, the head of Yongsan District Tax Office imposed two gift taxes of KRW 513,675,780 ( KRW 98,025,940 + KRW 415,649,840) on the Defendant. The Plaintiff paid each gift tax on the money from his bank account (one bank account number H) on December 31, 2013 can be acknowledged by either disputing parties or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 1, 8 and 12-2. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to reimburse the Plaintiff for expenses incurred in the management of affairs and to pay the Plaintiff KRW 513,675,780 as the repayment of expenses incurred in the management of affairs, and delay damages by the Defendant from the date of the first instance judgment on March 27, 2018 to the date on which the Defendant performed his/her duty to pay a copy of the complaint of this case by 15% per annum from the date on which the Defendant performed his/her duty.

(A) The Plaintiff sought payment of statutory delay damages from January 1, 2014 to 5% per annum on the following day of the tax payment. However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff paid gift tax upon the Defendant’s request, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff cannot claim the legal interest accrued from the date of exemption to the time of claiming for reimbursement of expenses after the exemption because it falls under the case of reimbursement of delegated expenses for which interest may be claimed after the date of payment pursuant to Article 688(1) of the Civil Act, unlike the case of reimbursement of expenses for delegated affairs, since the Plaintiff’s payment of the above KRW 513,675,780 on the part of the Intervenor’s company’s funds, the Defendant asserted that there was no “expenses” itself to seek reimbursement. However, the Plaintiff’s transfer from the Intervenor’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, more than the above amount on the day immediately before the date of payment of the gift tax of this case, to the account in the name of the Plaintiff.