1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), it is recognized that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with livelihood equivalent to KRW 5,410,000 on November 12, 2015.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 4.19 million won remaining after deducting 1.22 million won from the price of the above pro rata goods 5.1 billion won for the remainder of 4.1 billion won, and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum prescribed in the Civil Act from November 13, 2015 to November 25, 2016, which is obviously a delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, as sought by the Plaintiff, from November 25, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

2. On April 2014, 2014, before the Defendant was supplied with the Defendant’s livelihood from the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff did not supply the livelihood, and there was a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 5 million already paid. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense against the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff is set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment.

According to the result of this court's response to the letter of order to submit financial transaction information at the Samcheon-gu Branch, the defendant's defense is without merit, inasmuch as it is found that KRW 5,00,000 has been deposited in the account under the name of the plaintiff on May 3, 2013, but it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 5,00,000 against the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim should be accepted as reasonable.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is groundless.