1. The salary that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from September 2009 to October 14, 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was in a position of the Defendant’s non-standing adviser from September 2009 to October 2010.

B. During the above period, the Plaintiff received KRW 52,782,00,00 in total as wages from the Defendant (up to October 14, 2010).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The defendant's assertion that he received investment from C organizations around August 2009, the "D Apartment Development Project" was proceeding.

At the time, the Defendant’s representative E paid monthly salary from F of C’s vice-chairperson to “if the Plaintiff does not work, the monthly salary would be paid to the Plaintiff.” Although the Plaintiff did not receive any work from the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s representative E paid monthly salary from September 2009 to October 14, 2010 to KRW 52,782,00 in total.

At the time, the defendant could not refuse F's request from the vice president of C organization because the defendant borrowed funds from C organization to conduct the land purchase business.

As such, the plaintiff and the vice president of C organization had the defendant pay the money in the name of the salary to the plaintiff by taking advantage of the defendant's poor condition. The labor contract between the defendant and the plaintiff is null and void as an unfair legal act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the above money to the Defendant with unjust enrichment.

B. Determination 1) Since a juristic act which has manifestly lost fairness under Article 104 of the Civil Act refers to an act of obtaining unfair economic benefits by allowing the other party to return in return that has remarkably lost balance compared to his/her own benefit, it is not a juristic act of a nature in which one of the parties without any consideration, such as a donation contract, may discuss whether the juristic act is fair (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da56833, Feb. 11, 200). It is also based on the Defendant’s argument.