2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff was appointed as the president of the C Association (hereinafter “instant C”) and currently served as the president of the instant C.

B. On December 15, 2014, before the Plaintiff was appointed as the president of the instant C, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s account that was a director of the instant C.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Before the Plaintiff’s assertion was appointed as the president of the instant C, the Defendant, who was a director of the instant C, transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s personal account, on the ground that the Defendant, who was a director of the instant C, transferred KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s personal account.

However, the defendant arbitrarily used the above money.

Therefore, since the defendant gains the above 20 million won, which was remitted by the plaintiff without any legal ground, and thereby causes damages to the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to return the above 20 million won which was unjustly gained by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and to pay damages for delay.

3. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another person’s property or service without any legal cause and thereby causes a loss to another person shall return such benefit.”

The burden of proving that there is no legal ground in the case of the so-called unjust enrichment that one party claims the return of the benefits after having paid a certain amount of benefits according to his/her own will on the grounds that there is no legal ground.

In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., and that in the same case as the so-called mistake remittance made on the ground that there was no ground for the act of payment from the beginning, he/she has remitted the money by mistake.