1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be modified by the modification of the claim in this court as follows.

1. The reasoning for the judgment on this part of this court’s basic facts is as follows: (a) the Defendant D’s “Defendant D” in the “1. Basic Facts” in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as the “Defendant”; and (b) the Defendant C and B shall be read as the “Co-Defendant C and B” in the “Defendant C” in the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) the same shall apply to the corresponding part, except for the addition of the “in the same manner as the attached list” in the front of “Defendant C and B” in the 5th two parallel “Defendant C and B”

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary claim is that the Defendant, while being aware that the Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) acquired money through embezzlement, continued to sustain the Plaintiff’s damage by making it difficult or impossible to recover the Plaintiff’s damage by receiving a mobile phone disposal charge from B and using, concealing, or preserving the money. At least, B knew or could have known that the money was created by any unlawful means other than normal methods, but continued to receive the payment without implied permission. Therefore, the Defendant, upon the joint tort liability with B, etc., has a duty to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damage amounting to KRW 700,00,000, which is part of KRW 2,308,435,800, which is the damage suffered by the Plaintiff.

B. Preliminary Claim B donated KRW 31,000,000 to the Defendant on May 28, 2014, while exceeding the obligation.

In addition, B donated KRW 185,00,000 to the Defendant or purchased the instant apartment with the money transferred to the instant account including the remittance amount, and on May 30, 2014, upon registering in the name of the Defendant as to the share of 1/2 of the instant apartment on May 30, 2014, B donated KRW 175,00,000 (=350,000,000 】 1/2) of the purchase fund corresponding to the Defendant’s share.

Each of the above donations constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the Plaintiff selectively sought payment of KRW 216,00,000 (i.e., KRW 185,000,000) as the revocation of the instant remittance act and the donation of KRW 31,00,000 on May 28, 2014 and compensation for the value arising from restitution (i.e., KRW 31,00,000) or sought payment of KRW 31,00,000, or on May 30, 2014.