대여금
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000.
3. The costs of the lawsuit.
1. The facts below the underlying facts are either in dispute between the parties or acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.
A. On July 16, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the condition that the lease deposit is KRW 70 million with respect to Kimhae-si D apartment 101 Dong 106 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the lease term is set from July 23, 201 to July 23, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the said deposit to C around that time.
B. On August 2, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a chonsegwon with the Defendant, who is a friendly person with chonsegwon as to the apartment of this case, and thereafter, the Plaintiff operated a childcare center in the instant apartment from around that time.
C. Around November 2012, C sold the instant apartment to E, and the instant lease agreement was terminated.
C On November 16, 2012, the deposit was returned by means of remitting the deposit amount of KRW 70 million to the deposit account in the Defendant’s name.
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) In the first place, since the amount of KRW 70 million remitted to the Defendant is unjust enrichment, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff. 2) Preliminaryly, the Defendant concluded a quasi-loan loan contract with the Defendant after remitting the amount of KRW 70 million to the Defendant’s deposit account, and the Defendant is obligated to return the said amount to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant, who donated KRW 70 million to the Defendant, did not have the obligation to pay the said money to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was a pro-child, lost his workplace, family, or property.
3. Determination
A. As to the principal claim, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 70 million to the Defendant, and the name of the Defendant upon the request of the Defendant, because it is likely that the Plaintiff would be at a disadvantage in receiving the subsidy if the Plaintiff registered the establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis in the name of the Plaintiff in the instant apartment complex, while operating the child care center in the instant apartment.