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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows. The defendant's assertion of adding or emphasizing "L which is an incorporated foundation" in the third chapter 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance to "AE (the later incorporated foundation L)", and it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in the following Paragraph 2 to the argument that the defendant added or emphasized by this court. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. The defendant asserts that the amount deposited directly from the account under the name of the plaintiff to the account under the name of the defendant is less than 19,443,500 won, and the remainder is deposited into the account under the name of the defendant, so the defendant did not gain more than the above 19,443,50 won.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, it is recognized that G, the representative director of the plaintiff, has remitted the total amount of KRW 269,28,500 to the No. 178, on 17 occasions from December 16, 2015 to January 20, 2017, directly or through the plaintiff's accounting staff, from the corporate bank account under the name of the defendant to the No. Hyup Bank or the new bank account under the name of the defendant. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that G received a total of KRW 79,350,000 from the defendant's side for the purpose of investment, and then remitted it to the plaintiff's account under the name of the plaintiff, and thus, it did not constitute unjust enrichment of KRW 79,350,000 among the money returned by the plaintiff thereafter.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant transferred the sum of KRW 79,350,000 to G as an investment deposit in the Plaintiff only with the statement in subparagraph 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5, G transferred total of KRW 76,850,90 on 16 occasions to an external bank account under the Plaintiff’s name from April 16, 2015 to August 11, 2015. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is examined.