1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that around May 21, 2003, the defendant returned to the plaintiff about KRW 15 million out of the dividend paid to the Busan District Court C real estate auction procedure in Busan District Court C real estate auction procedure, and the remaining KRW 5 million was not returned. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of the money with compensation for unjust enrichment return or tort.

2. The defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since the lawsuit of this case violates the subordinate agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant.

In the case where there is any difference between the parties on the validity or scope of the agreement to bring an action, the agreement to bring an action is an important litigation law, such as waiver of the right to a trial guaranteed by the Constitution, and it shall be valid as to the circumstances anticipated at the time of the agreement. In the case where there is any difference on the validity or scope of the agreement

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da80449 Decided November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on March 5, 2015 to the effect that “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million in installments, and the Plaintiff shall withdraw both criminal complaints against the Defendant and the lawsuit claiming compensation for damages against the Defendant, and shall not file a civil lawsuit or criminal complaint against the Defendant under any circumstances and circumstances in which the Defendant would have been in the future” (hereinafter referred to as “agreement on the Plaintiff’s lawsuit”).

According to the plaintiff's assertion, since the date on which the defendant received dividends falls on May 21, 2003, the plaintiff's view could have sufficiently predicted the damage incurred by the failure to return the dividends at the time of the conclusion of the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the agreement on the lawsuit in this case includes both the return of unjust enrichment related to the unclaimed dividend or the lawsuit for damages caused by the tort.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.