부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On May 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant with two negotiable certificates of deposit in the attached list (a total of KRW 200 million) issued to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant negotiable certificates of deposit”), and secured the same and borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant.
(hereinafter referred to as “the loan of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s loan of this case’s loan of this case’s No. 3, Gap’s certificate No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's argument asserts that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to pay the loan of this case to the defendant and receive the certificate of this case upon the conclusion of the trial on the actual owner of the certificate of this case. On August 16, 2006, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to provide 20 million won to the defendant and return the certificate of this case, but the defendant refused to return it without justifiable grounds. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return 200 million won equivalent to the face value of the certificate of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
3. The Plaintiff paid the loan of this case to the Defendant on the sole basis of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the performance has been provided, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1-2 and 1-2, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant on the charge that the Defendant embezzled the instant certificate of deposit as a collateral for the instant loan, and the prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on July 25, 2007 (defluence of evidence). The Plaintiff again filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant for the same criminal facts, but the prosecutor of the same public prosecutor’s office dismissed the instant case on May 15, 2009, and the instant certificate of deposit via the Defendant.