1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 27,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 13, 2018 to December 18, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff leased KRW 22,00,000 to the Defendant is not a dispute between the parties.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, at the attorney’s expense of Nonparty C, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the attorney-at-law. Since the appointment was revoked, the Plaintiff returned KRW 13,000,000 from the attorney-at-law to the Defendant’s account, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should return the above KRW 13,00,000 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

The written evidence No. 7-1, No. 7-2 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had received the return of KRW 13,000,000,000 in excess of KRW 5,000,00 as the Defendant’s person. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the Defendant’s obligation to return is recognized only for KRW 5,00,000,00.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total sum of KRW 27,00,000 ( KRW 22,00,000,000) as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 13, 2018, which is the date of the decision, which is the date of delivery of the original copy of the payment order in this case, to December 18, 2018, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, and 15% per annum as stipulated under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is accepted within the above recognition scope, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit