부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant for the purpose of withdrawing the lien holders from the building on the D ground of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) purchased by its partners C, but the Defendant did not perform the above duties, and thus, the Plaintiff should return KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
2. According to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2-2 of the judgment, it is recognized that the Defendant, on January 14, 2017, received KRW 10,000 from the Plaintiff on the receipt of KRW 10,00,00,000, which was not paid as personnel expenses for the instant building, C received KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff would receive KRW 10,000,000, which was not paid as personnel expenses for the instant building, and that the Plaintiff would receive KRW 10,000 on January 12, 2017.
However, the contents of the above receipt shall not be construed to have received the advance payment for the service affairs already performed by the Defendant.
In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 4-2, the fact that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant each of the amount of KRW 4,000,000 on September 9, 2016, KRW 2,00,000 on November 25, 2016, and KRW 1,50,000 on January 12, 2017 is recognized.
However, such facts alone are insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff paid 10,000,000 won as the service price in advance to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
(A) As to the method of payment of KRW 10,00,000 for the first time, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 1,50,000 for the account on January 12, 2017 and paid KRW 8,50,000 for the remaining KRW 8,50,000 in cash each time on September 4, 2016, and KRW 2,000,000 for the first time on November 25, 2016, and KRW 7,50,000 for the total amount of KRW 1,50,000 for the account on January 12, 2017, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,50,000 for the payment in cash is not consistent). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.
The judgment of the first instance is the conclusion.