1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the money that orders the payment of the following to the plaintiff (a counterclaim defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. From May 10, 2007 to June 1, 201, the Plaintiff was a person in charge of the D’s accounting as Defendant B’s representative from May 10, 2007, and performed the duties of remittance, expenditure, etc. to D’s customer.

B. During the above period, the Plaintiff loaned money to Defendant B by means of using the Plaintiff’s funds for D, etc., and thereafter received the loan by means of receiving transfer of the funds from the Plaintiff or Plaintiff-friendly relatives to the account.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff and defendant B's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s principal claim 1) The Plaintiff’s loans to Defendant B amounted to KRW 2,197,821,81 in total, and the amount repaid to Defendant B amounting to KRW 1,695,94,854 in total. Therefore, the Plaintiff seek against Defendant B the payment of loans amounting to KRW 501,87,957,957 (= KRW 2,197,821,811 – KRW 1,695,943,854) and its delay delay damages. Meanwhile, Defendant B donated each of the instant real estate to Defendant C, the wife of which was over obligations on February 22, 2011. This constitutes a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks cancellation of the above donation contract and cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of each of the instant real estate completed under the said donation contract as restitution.

B. Although the Plaintiff, which caused Defendant B’s counterclaim, lent a total of KRW 1,792,843,147 to Defendant B, the Plaintiff recovered total of KRW 2,361,601,428 from Defendant B.

Therefore, 568,758,281 won (i.e., 2,361,601,428 won - 1,792,843,147 won) and damages for delay are claimed against the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of lending as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of repayment or embezzlement, such as the result of the lower appraiser E’s accounting appraisal of the lower court, and the result of each fact-finding on the said appraiser at the lower court and the lower court, the lower appraiser at the lower court is based on the premise that the said Defendant bears the burden of proof.