인쇄대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. 제1심 판결의 인용 이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 설시할 이유는, 제1심 판결문 제2쪽 제2행의 ‘제작하여’ 다음에 ‘2013. 8. 14.’을 추가하고, 제2쪽 제4행의 ‘증거들’을 ‘갑 2(≒을9), 3, 4, 7, 8, 9호증(가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함, 이하 같다)의 각 기재’로, 제2쪽 제5, 6행의 ‘이 사건 기록’을 '위에서 본 증거 및 을 1, 2, 4, 14호증의 각 기재'로 각 고치고, 원고가 당심에서 추가한 예비적 청구에 관하여 아래 2.항과 같은 판단을 추가하는 이외에는 제1심 판결문의 이유 기재와 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다.
2. The plaintiff asserts that if there is no printing price payment agreement between the defendant and the defendant, the defendant gains profits from acquiring the book of this case without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return 7,068,000 won, which is equivalent to the production cost of the book of this case, to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
On the other hand, in the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the beneficiary's interest and the loss suffered by the victim are the person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment. As to the fact that there is no legal ground in the so-called unjust enrichment seeking return of unjust enrichment on the other party's ground that there is no legal ground, the person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment must prove that there is no legal ground
In this case, there is considerable room to see that the Defendant had been supported without compensation by the Plaintiff, and as seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the payment of the printing price. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired the instant book without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion needs to be examined further.