1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. Facts premised on ① The Defendant’s husband, the husband of the Plaintiff Company, was employed from June 14, 2016 to August 29, 2017 as an internal director, the representative of the Plaintiff Company.

② Around July 25, 2016, the Defendant transferred the name of the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff, and transferred the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff.

③ On June 10, 2017, KRW 10,000,000 was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “instant remittance”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. C, the former representative of the Plaintiff, remitted the amount of remittance of this case to the Defendant without any transactional relationship, and the Defendant unjust enrichment without any legal cause. Thus, the Defendant shall return the amount of remittance of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant paid KRW 4,527,030 in total with the Plaintiff’s insurance premium, acquisition tax for moving the instant vehicle, booms purchase cost, and rental cost and repair cost used for repairing the instant vehicle with the Plaintiff’s credit card while using the instant vehicle as a personal vehicle after unfairly transferring the instant vehicle in the name of the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff is liable to prove that the amount of remittance of this case that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant in the determination of the claim on the amount of remittance of this case constitutes unjust enrichment because the amount of remittance of this case embezzled by C or was paid without any legal cause. However, each of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 16, 20, 23, 27, 28, and 29 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the statement of No. 3 and witness E’s testimony, on May 12, 2017, F sent KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff as advance payment for home shopping-related contract, and it can be acknowledged that C and the Defendant received all of the above KRW 10,00,000 from C and the Defendant.