1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 1, 2016 to January 19, 2016.

1. In full view of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness C, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on July 17, 2014 under the Plaintiff’s employment-related referral expenses, etc., and thereafter, the Defendant would return the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 40,000,000 to C where he/she was not employed until March 30, 2015, when he/she was not employed by March 30, 2015.

“The fact that the Plaintiff prepared and executed a written statement may be recognized. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 5,00,000 among the above KRW 40,000,000 through D, and the Plaintiff is a person who extended the payment period of KRW 40,00,000 by December 31, 2015, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder amount of KRW 35,000,000, and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 1, 2016 to January 19, 2016, the delivery date of the written complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

(A) Of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from April 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 is rejected. (2) The Defendant’s assertion and its determination as to the claim

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant constitutes illegal consideration for the solicitation of employment in C. The Defendant only prepared a written statement in the capacity of an agent E, the final recipient of KRW 40,000,000, as well as in the capacity of an agent E, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek the return of the said money against the Defendant.

B. Where a person who received performance after illegal consideration 1 enters into an agreement on the return of the performance itself or in lieu of the performance under a separate agreement that causes the performance, unlike the case where the person who made the performance for illegal consideration claims the return of the unjust enrichment, the agreement itself does not constitute null and void contrary to social order.