1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The primary father, the Defendant’s father, of the Defendant’s primary assertion, committed as if he were engaged in a big business even though he did not have the ability to repay even if he borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and acquired KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff. The Defendant took part in the act of defraudation by C, such as lending to C the account in the name of the Defendant, planning to operate the Institute of Private Sciences with the above borrowed money, and confirming the purpose of the use thereof. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for joint tort liability with C, and thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 30 million. 2) The primary Defendant, without any legal cause with the Plaintiff, received KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff to the account in the name of the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff should return the amount of KRW 30 million with unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff invested KRW 30 million in the scrap metal collection and sale business run by C, the father of the Defendant; and (b) when C was registered as a person with bad credit standing and was unable to conduct financial transactions in one’s name, C received the said investment money using the account in the name of the Defendant, his/her father, and distributed profits to the Plaintiff. It is difficult to readily conclude that C was an intent to acquire the said investment money at the time of receiving the said investment money from the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant did not know about the investment relationship between the Plaintiff and C; and (c) there was no limit to demand the Plaintiff to lend the said money. Even if the Plaintiff’s liability for damages was recognized, the Plaintiff became aware of the damage around July 6, 2012, the Plaintiff’s damage claim against the Defendant was extinguished by the completion of the prescription period on July 5, 2015.