All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, and the Republic of Korea.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the plaintiff co-litigation (hereinafter referred to as the "participating"), the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and Korea

A. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, the Defendants were malicious beneficiaries, and Article 748(2) of the Civil Act provides that “If a beneficiary of bad faith causes damage to the interest he/she has returned with interest added thereto, he/she shall compensate for such damage.” Article 749(1) provides that “When the beneficiary becomes aware of no legal ground after receiving the benefit, he/she shall be liable to return the benefit as a malicious beneficiary from that time when the lawsuit was brought against the bona fide beneficiary.” Article 749(2) provides that “When the bona fide beneficiary loses the loss, the beneficiary

Here, “malicious” refers to recognizing that ownership of one’s own interest is not a legal cause, apart from cases where such act is deemed bad faith under Article 749(2) of the Civil Act, and that there is no legal cause for holding such interest. In other words, it is insufficient to recognize that there is a fact meeting the requirements for the fulfillment of the obligation to return unjust enrichment.

(2) On April 12, 2018, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff and the Intervenor did not provide specific proof of assertion regarding the fact that the Defendants, when receiving the purchase and sale price of the instant shares from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), knew that the Defendants were benefit without any legal cause at the time of receiving the purchase and sale price of the instant shares.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor seeking legal interest payment after the date of receipt of the purchase and sale price of shares is rejected, and the part of the claim against the Defendants in the first instance trial from the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case deemed to be bad faith.