1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Preliminary Defendant C (Appointed Party) is KRW 4,500,000,000.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) paid Defendant C the sum of KRW 25,00,000 per day from April 201 to September 2012 (25,000 per day (25,000 x 180 days) and D paid Defendant C the sum of KRW 25,00 per day from January 2012 to September 2012 (25,000 x 247 days) as cash or Defendant B’s account.

(hereinafter “this case’s payment”). (hereinafter “this case’s payment”) argues to the effect that there is no dispute on the grounds of recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to Defendant B’s main defense of safety, Defendant B asserted to the effect that “the plaintiff and the selected person D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the plaintiff et al.”) have transacted with Defendant C, and thus, the principal is not qualified as a party, and the plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant B should be dismissed.”

However, in a performance lawsuit, a person who asserts that he/she is the person entitled to demand performance has standing to sue and has standing to be the defendant, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not require that he/she is the person in charge of performance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da13927 delivered on September 18, 1998, etc.). Accordingly, inasmuch as the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit in this case by asserting that he had a claim against the Defendant B, the Plaintiff and the Defendant B have a standing to be a party, so Defendant B’s defense of principal safety is without merit.

Judgment

The Plaintiff et al., on the recommendation of Defendant C, who is a member recruitment of the number of days, subscribed to the number of days and paid the instant payment to Defendant C in cash or to Defendant B’s account.

However, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff, etc. the contact was interrupted, and Defendant B and C are primarily obligated to return the instant payment to the Plaintiff, etc. in return for unjust enrichment.

The Defendants did not recruit the number of days, and the payment of this case was only made by Defendant C with the money lent to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6, 7 respectively.