1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant lent C several times of KRW 1 billion to C, and the Defendant filed a complaint on the charge of fraud due to C’s failure to repay this amount.

B. As a result, while being tried for the crime of fraud in Chuncheon District Court 2014Kadan235, which was detained by C, the Plaintiff, upon C’s request, issued and delivered a letter of waiver of the right to cultivate land to the Defendant on January 26, 2014, stating that “if C does not pay KRW 500 million to the Defendant (the Plaintiff concludes a loan agreement with the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and gives up the right to cultivate land and the right to cultivate land of 44,801 square meters on a parcel of land other than 446 m20,000 square meters, which is the State-owned land of the Gangseo-gu, Suwon-gu, Seoul

C. On January 27, 2014, executives, etc. of “E Farming Partnership” including C and the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a letter (joint guarantee) stating that “The Defendant will pay in installments the debt amounting to KRW 50 million in the payment of KRW 50 million from February 28, 2015 to the end of each month.”

On August 15, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) set the right to cultivate a parcel of 44,801 square meters and its ground fruit trees at KRW 500,000,000,000; and (b) paid it to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, Eul's evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a joint and several surety of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 as well as KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000

5. On June 21, 201, KRW 8 million, KRW 70 million on June 5, 2015, and KRW 84 million on behalf of others.

In other words, upon receipt of KRW 10 million from C to pay a loan to the Defendant, KRW 84 million out of that amount shall be paid to the Defendant, and the remainder of KRW 26 million shall be appropriated for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s claim.

(C) On November 1, 2017, the Defendant’s return of KRW 84 million from the Plaintiff should be considered as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that KRW 84 million is not the Plaintiff but C’s money, which is merely a partial repayment of the remainder of KRW 550 million.

(c).