1. Defendant who exceeds the following amount among the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for deletion or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of the first instance judgment’s 6th to 6th is deleted, “The Defendant, even though not only did the Defendant file a complaint by embezzlement, etc., but also did not request the payment of the remainder, excluding the amount paid to the Defendant, out of the amount received from the Plaintiff.”

Part VI of the first instance judgment from 19th to 7th 6th tier shall be followed as follows.

“(2) In accordance with an unjust compulsory execution as seen above, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant unduly unjust enrichment was made by collecting KRW 16,713,00 among the Plaintiff’s deposit claims on April 24, 2018. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 11, 2019 to April 29, 2020, which is the day following the delivery date of the written application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, and from April 11, 2019 to April 29, 2020, which is the date of the final judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s claim for delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff is demanding the Defendant to collect the above collection amount, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant is a malicious beneficiary.

(i) "";

2. The plaintiff's objection claim is reasonable, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each claim shall be accepted, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are groundless.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant regarding the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is unreasonable, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is above.