The defendant paid KRW 1,529,092 to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 27, 2019 to July 10, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant, a bound person operating a house under the name of “C,” and requested the Defendant to undertake various types of rights for the principal and his family members at least 13 times from March 2018; and (b) paid as requested by the Defendant the proceeds of the performance of the rights for the trust that the Defendant continued.

B. Around March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 7770,00 to the Defendant for the purchase cost of bitco, and the Defendant’s East C, who received the said money from the Defendant and purchased bitcos, remitted KRW 1,529,092 to the Defendant on August 9, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for return of the value of the security deposit

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant received KRW 139,130,70 in total from the Plaintiff or his family members, by making a false statement as if the Plaintiff did not receive the Plaintiff’s horse or did not have the intent or ability to cure the disease, or by giving the Plaintiff or his family members a false statement as if the Plaintiff did not receive the right to receive the deposit, or by giving the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 139,130,70 in total, on 13 occasions, as the value of the right to receive the deposit. This constitutes a tort or an unfair juristic act based on mistake, fraud, or mistake as delineated below, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate

① The Defendant’s act of having the Plaintiff receive the acceptance of the contract at a low price by deceiving and threatening the Plaintiff is a tort constituting a crime of extortion, fraud, or unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the value of the above right to rescission of contract that the plaintiff paid.

② A juristic act, the receipt of which is remarkably low in value by the Defendant, is null and void as a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the value of the deposit received to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

③ The Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant and his family.