대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The allegations and judgment of the parties
A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The plaintiff (the "stock company C" prior to the change) made a preferential payment of KRW 100,000,000 on August 2, 2016, and KRW 50,000,000 on August 23, 2016, upon the defendant’s request, in the course of negotiations to conclude a contract for the supply of goods, such as a certain amount of money, with the defendant, and the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000 as security deposit. Since negotiations around August 2016, the defendant demanded the return of the said money. 2) As to this, the defendant claimed that D Co., Ltd (the "Co. E" after the change, and hereinafter referred to as "D") was subrogated by the plaintiff and did not borrow money from the plaintiff.
B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking the return of unjust enrichment, the burden of proof as to the fact that the general elements for establishing unjust enrichment occurred without any legal cause is borne by the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da72786, May 29, 2008). However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as evidence No. 5, etc. is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff remitted KRW 100,000 to the defendant under the pretext of advance payment or deposit under the premise that the contract for the supply of goods with the defendant was concluded, and there is no other evidence to support that the defendant obtained profits without any legal cause.
Rather, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the defendant, the plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 100 million to the defendant as the repayment of part of the goods payment obligation against the defendant.
① On February 25, 2016, the Defendant entered into a continuous commodity supply contract with D on the processed meat products, such as lives, etc. (hereinafter “instant commodity supply contract”).
② The credit transaction limit under the instant goods supply contract was KRW 500 million. The Defendant supplied goods as of July 2016, when the outstanding amount exceeds KRW 500 million.