1. Defendant limited partnership companies: (a) the amount of KRW 31,915,00 and the amount of KRW 31,915,00 shall be fully paid to the Plaintiff from February 25, 2015.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant limited partnership company's DNA cases

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C

A. (1) On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 6,250,000 from the national bank account under the name of the Plaintiff to the national bank account under the name of the Defendant B, and KRW 5,750,000 from September 24, 2014, respectively, to the national bank account under the name of the Defendant C’s name, under the so-called “Sishing” with the intent to purchase and sell real estate owned by the Plaintiff, including “the actual transaction price for the purchase and sale of real estate, confirmation cost, guarantee insurance cost, and notarized expenses.”

(2) On September 24, 2014, the nominal holder transferred KRW 250,000,000, out of the money deposited in Defendant B’s account, to Defendant C’s account, and then deposited KRW 6,000,000 from each of the said Defendants’ accounts.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, and the result of this court's response to an order to submit financial transaction information to the national bank, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Where an addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of the account transfer through a account transfer even though there is no legal relationship between the remitter and the addressee as to the primary claim (the claim for return of unjust enrichment), the remitter shall be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the addressee (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). However, the unjust enrichment system imposes the duty of return on the benefiting person in a case where the benefiting person’s property gains do not have a legal ground, and thus, it is difficult to impose the duty of return if there is no substantial benefit on the benefiting person.