Article 26(1) of the Private International Act provides that in case where the parties concerned fail to choose the applicable law, the contract shall be governed by the law of the country most closely related to the contract, and Article 31 of the same Act provides that the unjust enrichment shall be governed by the law of the place where the profit was generated, and the unjust enrichment shall be governed by the law of the legal relationship in case where the performance was

In this case, the plaintiff asserts that he lent the above money to the defendant Eul by transferring the money to the defendant Eul and having the defendant Eul re-transfer the above money to the defendant Eul, and that he sought reimbursement from the defendant Eul in the first place, and if the money loan contract with the defendant A is not acknowledged in the first place, the plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount to the defendant Eul.

First, the governing law of the loan claim is that the housing of the defendant A is located in the Republic of Korea and is considered to be the Republic of Korea, so the country most closely related to the above monetary loan contract is the Republic of Korea.

Next, in relation to the governing law of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, if the plaintiff remitted money to the defendant B residing in the Republic of Korea without any legal ground, it is reasonable to view that the benefit occurred in Korea.

Therefore, both the Plaintiff’s above loan claim and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment should be determined in accordance with Korean law.

2. Claim against the defendant A;

A. On December 28, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to grant a loan of USD 2,00,000 to Defendant A with interest rate of USD 8.9% per annum and maturity of payment on April 30, 2013. On the same day, Defendant B through Defendant B agreed to grant a loan of USD 1,00,000 to Defendant A.