1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,800,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 20, 2013 to November 9, 2015, and the next day.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the witness C’s testimony’s overall purport of pleading.

A. The Plaintiff, from March 2004, performed a parking agency and proxy work at a D restaurant operated by C, and the Defendant was appointed as the head of the office from the said restaurant until November 20, 2013.

B. The Defendant stated to the effect that “A restaurant is operated as a club business by C and the Defendant, and all of the substitute drivings in accordance with the restaurant operation policy shall be paid on the end of the month by the Plaintiff.”

However, the defendant was merely an employee of the restaurant, and the fee was prohibited by the plaintiff's agent, and the defendant was well aware of C's policy.

C. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 5 million in 2004, KRW 6 million in each year from 2005 to 2011, and KRW 52,500,000 in total, from November 2012.

In 204 and 2005, the Plaintiff paid 400,000 won to the Defendant a total of 7.3 million won, such as the Defendant’s gambling expenses, around November 2008, the sum of 7.3 million won, including 6 million won, at the Defendant’s expense, for 9 years based on the value of rice weeded rice wed and rice wed for 9 years, at the end of the year, 3.6 million won.

2. The Plaintiff’s payment of substitute driving fees to the Defendant is a tort caused by fraud, and the remainder of money is not paid by the Plaintiff, and it also causes damages to the Defendant by fraud, which would have caused disadvantages to the Defendant as a restaurant operator if the Plaintiff did not pay the money.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the entire amount of the said money.

3. The request shall be reasonable.