1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On July 9, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10.1 million to the Defendant on a loan basis. 2) If the said money was not paid as a loan, the Defendant acquired the profit equivalent to KRW 10.1 million without any legal ground and thereby incurred damages to the Plaintiff.

3. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,100,000,000 as the primary loan and damages for delay, and the amount of KRW 10,100,00 as the conjunctive unjust enrichment and damages for delay

B. C, the Defendant’s wife, lent KRW 10,00,000 to D on March 15, 2006. However, as D was paid from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,100,000 to the Defendant’s account due to the repayment of the said loan.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment on the primary claim No. 1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that on July 9, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 6 million to the Defendant’s account under the Defendant’s name, KRW 4 million, and KRW 1 million. However, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

B. The plaintiff's burden of proving that the defendant acquired profits without any legal ground in the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment as above is the plaintiff who asserts this.

As seen earlier, even though the Plaintiff was deemed to have remitted KRW 10,100,00 to the Defendant’s account on July 9, 2008, the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant, who transferred KRW 15,00,00 to the Defendant’s account under the name of the husband of D, was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,01,00 to the Defendant’s account on July 9, 2008, taking into account the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 3 through 5, 1, and 2, and the entire purport of the arguments.