1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s KRW 44,00,000 and its amount shall be from November 5, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C jointly invested in around 1994 to establish D Co., Ltd., and three persons operate the Company as their respective representatives. Since around 2004, C has adjusted the shares, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant acquired each of the D shares, and thereafter, the original Defendant operated D as their respective representatives.

They externally performed activities using the name of D, and inside the company, brought the price of each of their own works, bear the cost ratio of their own sales, and the employees also operate the company by the separate accounting method such as employment of each of them and the burden of their wages.

B. On May 21, 2001, D entered into a contract with the E religious organization F of the EM and the establishment of a two-story G charnel floor in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gyeyang-gu, and H completed the construction by receiving a subcontract in part.

H filed a lawsuit against D on June 26, 2008 against the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2008Gahap44688. During the process of the Seoul High Court case 2009Na122397, the appellate court, the Seoul High Court of Seoul High Court, paid D the F construction cost of KRW 170 million (hereinafter “unpaid construction cost”) to H by June 9, 201, and the adjustment was established that D would pay damages for delay by adding 20% per annum from the following day.

C. H received the collection, dividend, or repayment of KRW 115,35,816 in total after receiving a seizure collection order against D’s deposit and the claim for construction cost based on the above protocol of mediation.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking restitution of unjust enrichment against the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Gahap1143, and each of the above courts in the instant case and the Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na6057, the appellate court, as the F Corporation is a common construction of D, the Defendant and C should bear the obligation to pay the subcontract construction cost with the joint investment amount. The Plaintiff bears 105,549,917 out of the said amount collected, distributed, or repaid by H, and thus, the Defendant has its investment ratio.