1. As to KRW 278,590,09 and KRW 30,000 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 278,59 and KRW 248,417,921 from March 30, 2017.

Facts of recognition

On October 26, 2016, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, and was sentenced to a provisional execution declaration stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 248,417,921 and delay damages to the Defendant” was attached.

(Y) On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 248,417,921, 200, 2016, 2015, 2015, 2017, 2017, and 921, 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and00,000,000,000,000,00

On March 29, 2017, when the appellate court was in progress, the Plaintiff received a receipt from the Defendant that “if the Defendant’s claim is dismissed at the appellate court of Man-day, the Plaintiff promised to return to the Plaintiff the amount including the above KRW 30 million and the interest in arrears at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of receipt to the date of return.”

On August 18, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment on August 18, 2017 with a provisional execution declaration stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 266,737,183 and its delay damages to the Defendant.”

(Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2083311). The Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s right to claim the recovery of the said deposit on September 26, 2017 and received KRW 248,417,921 and interest KRW 172,178 and KRW 248,59 in total.

After that, the final appeal that was brought by the Plaintiff following the final appeal was rendered on January 25, 2018, and became final and conclusive on the grounds that the Defendant’s decision to issue a seizure collection order on the whole of the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff was served on the Plaintiff, a third obligor, and the Defendant, the obligor, lost its standing to be a party, the judgment of the appellate court is reversed, the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Defendant’s decision is dismissed

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Da264034). [Grounds for recognition] has no dispute.