1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was around 2008, the Plaintiff served as the head of the C Western Branch, and the Defendant, around 2006, invested approximately KRW 260 million in the fund class 7 after receiving investment consultation from the Plaintiff (at the time temporarily located branch office) and making investment in the fund class 7.

around October 2007, the fund that the Defendant joined was about KRW 360 million, but was assessed as KRW 280 million due to the influence of the global financial crisis around August 2008.

In order to increase the business profit of branches around 2008, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 40 million as security from the Defendant’s fund without the Defendant’s consent.

The defendant knew this fact, and threatened C and government agencies to put the petition, and ordered the plaintiff to compensate the plaintiff for the loss of KRW 80 million.

If the amount assessed by the defendant is recovered later, the plaintiff would return the amount of KRW 80 million from the defendant, and around August 2008, the plaintiff paid KRW 80 million to the defendant.

Since the defendant's fund assessment amount was restored to the end of 2009, the defendant must return to the plaintiff KRW 80 million.

Even if a return agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not accepted, the Defendant ought to return the amount of KRW 80 million received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, the plaintiff paid to the defendant the amount of KRW 40 million on Aug. 7, 2008, KRW 40 million on Aug. 19, 2008, KRW 40 million on Aug. 19, 2008, and the plaintiff's consciousness D and E prepared a confirmation document that conforms to the plaintiff's assertion.

B. However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to return KRW 80 million upon the recovery of the appraised amount of the Defendant’s fund between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. It is difficult to deem that the Defendant received KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment without any legal cause by the Defendant.

1 The plaintiff around 2008 C.