1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim on January 13, 2015 with the Seoul Central District Court for confirmation that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 1,046,229,349, out of the amount deposited by the Republic of Korea No. 910, the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court) on January 13, 2015, was the Plaintiff. The Defendants filed a claim for payment of the unjust enrichment of KRW 16,790,074, each of Defendant G254,214,321, Defendant H, I, and I, as a counterclaim, and the amount of the unjust enrichment of KRW 166,790,074, Defendant JJ 168,190,873, and each of these amounts, 5% per annum from May 12, 2011 to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the instant counterclaim, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The court of first instance accepted part of the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit, and accepted all of the principal portion of the Defendants’ counterclaims, but dismissed part of the legal interest or delay damages. Accordingly, only the Defendants filed an appeal against the Defendants among the part concerning the counterclaims in the judgment of first instance, and the remainder including the part concerning the principal lawsuit did not appeal against the Plaintiff or the Defendants.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the part against the Defendants among the legal interest or delay damages.

2. As to this part of the basic facts, the corresponding part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (from four to nine pages of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be cited as the grounds of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, part of the following shall be cut:

The 5th two pages of the judgment of the first instance shall be " April 10, 2009" and " April 8, 2009."

The 6th 12th 12 letter of the judgment of the first instance shall be applied to the "1th 12th 2010".

A letter 8-8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cut to 7-8.

I. Meanwhile, Defendant 1’s heir to Defendant 1 (hereinafter “Defendant”)

In 2011, the head of Dongjak Tax Office filed a lawsuit against the head of Dongjak Tax Office to revoke the disposition of revocation of inheritance tax imposition.