1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the 2014 Ghana 42209 case against the Plaintiff was based on the Goyang-gu District Court Decision.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the obligee and the Defendant as the obligor around November 2004, the Plaintiff’s birth-friendly relationship C, and the Defendant and the Plaintiff drafted a loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with the content that the Defendant borrowed KRW 20,00,000 from the obligee and the Defendant as the obligor, and that the repayment would be made three to four days thereafter.

B. The Defendant transferred KRW 18,000,000 to the account in the name of D on November 29, 2004.

D immediately delivered 18,00,000 won to the Plaintiff upon receipt of the remittance.

C. The defendant filed a lawsuit to return unjust enrichment with the purport that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,000 to C, upon request of the plaintiff or C, prepares a false certificate of loan and a false letter of guarantee. Thus, the above monetary loan contract and guarantee contract are invalid because they are false marks of agreement, and thus, they claim the return of the above KRW 18,00,000 against D.

However, in the above lawsuit, the above KRW 20,00,000 is the actual creditor of the plaintiff, and the 18,000,000,000 that the defendant remitted to D was paid as the repayment of the plaintiff's obligation to D, and thus, the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim was finalized on the ground that there is no legal ground for the payment of the plaintiff'

(former District Court Decision 2013Da28625 Decided September 5, 2013, Supreme Court Decision 2013Na10232 Decided June 10, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da4547 Decided October 30, 2014)

In other words, the Defendant: (a) concluded that the Plaintiff would not demand the Plaintiff to pay the borrowed money as the Plaintiff would lend money to the Plaintiff; (b) concluded that the Plaintiff would not demand the Plaintiff to pay the borrowed money as the Plaintiff would lend money; (c) thereafter, C promised to pay only part of the borrowed money to D; (d) paid KRW 18,00,000 to D with the promise to pay the borrowed money if it would be paid to D; and (c) ultimately, the said borrowed money is deemed as null and void by a false conspiracy, and (e) claimed that the said certificate was written by a false conspiracy, and thus, sought a return of the said money.