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

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The scope of the trial in this court asserted that the Plaintiff was the principal suit, and ① the first company, a corporation, a first company (hereinafter “the company prior to rehabilitation”) lent KRW 473,00,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant money”), and sought payment of the principal and interest on the instant lending against the Defendant. ② The Defendant asserted that the Defendant was paid the instant money without any legal cause from the company prior to rehabilitation and sought a return of the said amount in unjust enrichment.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant suffered damages equivalent to KRW 2.8 billion due to the failure of the company prior to the rehabilitation to perform the investment agreement concluded with the defendant as a counterclaim, and that he suffered damages equivalent to KRW 500,000 among them.

As to this, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s main claim on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support that the company prior to the rehabilitation lent the instant money to the Defendant, and that (2) it cannot be deemed that the investment agreement between the company prior to the rehabilitation and the Defendant was concluded, and thus, the Defendant cited the Plaintiff’s main claim on the ground that the Plaintiff should return the instant money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

(3) In addition, with respect to the Defendant’s counterclaim, the Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed on the ground that the Defendant’s claim seeking the counterclaim was exempted from its liability pursuant to Article 251 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”). Therefore, the Defendant’s counterclaim was unlawful on the grounds that there was no benefit in the

Since this Court appealed only to the defendant, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the above (2) main claim and (3) main claim, which are the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance.

2. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the basic facts are with the exception that the "witness of witnesses" in the last place of the judgment of the court of first instance not more than the third place shall be read as "witness of the court of first instance", and that the "this Court" in the fourth part shall be read as "the court of first instance", respectively.