1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following to the fourth and nine pages of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Additional Part

D. The Plaintiff obtained profit of KRW 900,000 on February 2, 2008 after the conclusion of the instant currency option contract, but thereafter, incurred a total of KRW 639,120,000 as shown in attached Table 1 by October 22, 2008, and incurred a net loss of KRW 1,378,920,000 on October 24, 2008 by cancelling the instant currency option contract on October 22, 2008 and settling over the remaining transactions from the maturity date to the maturity date on January 24, 2009 and paying KRW 740,700,00 on October 24, 2009 to the Defendant for termination settlement.

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is that the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the currency with the Defendant’s person in charge without the consent of G’s representative director who was a U.S. business trip at the time of the Plaintiff’s management team E, and this is effective against the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff the money received from the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant currency contract to the unjust enrichment.

Judgment

According to the evidence No. 11 and evidence No. 15-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff’s representative director at the time of entering into the instant currency option contract is acknowledged as having been staying in a foreign country, and the instant currency option contract was concluded through an wire currency between the team leader affiliated with the Plaintiff’s management team and the Defendant’s head of the HUB business division.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements No. 5 (foreign exchange transaction agreement) and No. 11, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant currency option contract prior to the conclusion of the contract.