약정금
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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the new allegations made by the plaintiff in the trial, and as to the remaining allegations by the plaintiff excluding the new arguments, the evidence submitted to the court of first instance is the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, and even if the purport of the whole pleadings is shown in the statement of evidence No. 2 submitted by the plaintiff in the court of first instance, it is just to recognize and determine the facts by the court of first instance
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the new argument that the plaintiff made in the court of first instance.
2. As to the plaintiff's new assertion, in a case where it is not acknowledged that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay wages to the plaintiff when the defendant received the payment of the down payment, etc. from the contractor, or where the plaintiff's wage claim expired by prescription, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to return the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's wages to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment since the plaintiff's provision of labor was made profit and thereby caused damage equivalent to the same amount.
Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who, without any legal cause, obtains a benefit from the property or labor of another and thereby causes loss to the other person shall return such benefit.” Thus, in the case of so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has made a certain benefit according to his/her own intent and demanded the return of the benefit on the ground that there is no legal cause, the burden of proof as to the absence of legal cause
(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018). This case pertains to this case.