1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the “decision on preliminary claims” as set forth in paragraph (2) and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. If the contract of this case was not concluded between the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's assertion and the defendant's assertion, the defendant obtained profits by receiving KRW 55,00,000 from the plaintiff without any legal ground, and thereby incurred losses equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 5,000,000 won and damages for delay due to the return of unjust enrichment.

B. The determination system imposes an obligation to return unjust enrichment on the benefiting party in a case where the benefiting of the benefiting party did not have any legal cause, but, if the benefiting party did not actually belong to the benefiting party, the return obligation cannot be imposed.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant, upon receipt of the Plaintiff’s request, has received KRW 55,00,000 from the Plaintiff to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant on March 6, 2017, even though it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 55,00,000 from the Defendant’s bank account on September 6, 201, as seen in the first instance judgment, transferred KRW 4,400,000, out of KRW 555,000 to C on the date of said remittance to D, and thus, the Defendant transferred KRW 50,60,000 to the said account in the name of the Defendant on September 8, 201. In light of the above legal principles, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 55,00,000 to the account in the name of the Defendant is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant actually benefits the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The decision of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim added by this court is also dismissed as it is without merit.