1. The Defendant’s KRW 129,878,893 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from May 11, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

1. The relationship between the parties (A. 2, 3, 4, and 6) and the Defendant and the Network C had the Plaintiff under the chain of marriage (hereinafter “the instant insurance proceeds”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Network C agreed on October 9, 200 and appointed the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s person with parental authority as the Plaintiff. On September 2, 2011, the Network C determined on September 2, 2011, it is recognized that: (a) the Defendant received from the E Co., Ltd. on March 9, 2017 the insurance proceeds of the EF insurance contract (the insurance proceeds paid upon the death of C), the heir of the insured C and the beneficiary, and consumed both (hereinafter “the insurance proceeds of this case”). At the time of receiving the insurance proceeds of this case, the Defendant was not the beneficiary of the instant insurance proceeds of this case; and (b) the Plaintiff constitutes the heir of the network C as the sole heir (the sole beneficiary).

Since the defendant received insurance money as a person with parental authority of the minor plaintiff at the time of receiving insurance money, he/she should return the money to the plaintiff after the plaintiff became adult, and as such, the defendant bears the obligation to return unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 129,878,893 won, which is the amount equivalent to the above insurance proceeds, and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum from May 11, 2019 to May 31, 2019, as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the main text of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019); and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

In this regard, the defendant alleged that he returned the money corresponding to the share of inheritance to the plaintiff, but as seen earlier, the insurance money of this case is not only the amount to be acquired by the plaintiff but also there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant paid all of the insurance money of this case to the plaintiff.