부당이득반환
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. Basic facts
A. (1) On March 14, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a commercial lease agreement with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff was aware of the Plaintiff’s Fmat Operation Plan and its progress in the name of “DMat” in the city of the Government; and (b) the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that it was difficult to operate the Smat in order to open the Smarket in another place to open the Smat; and (c) on the trade name, “Fmat” (hereinafter “FE”) in both states owned by the Defendant; and (d) paid KRW 600,000 to the Defendant on March 14, 201; and (e) the Plaintiff concluded a commercial lease agreement with the Defendant by March 30, 2011.
D. However, on March 30, 201, the Plaintiff failed to prepare the instant Frant’s lease deposit and other operating capital, and the Plaintiff did not enter into a lease agreement with the Defendant until March 30, 201, and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he would be the lessee of the lease agreement.
B. (1) On April 16, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to lend the instant Fmaart’s opening business funds to the Plaintiff instead of changing the name of the creditor of the right to the refund of the lease deposit in the Gu Government G and the second floor (hereinafter “instant house”) that the Plaintiff resided in H from April 16, 2010, instead of changing the name of the creditor of the right to the refund of the lease deposit in the Gu Government-si G and the second floor (hereinafter “instant house”). The Defendant consented thereto.
D. On May 9, 201, H and the Defendant drafted a lease agreement with H on the above change in the lessee’s name. On May 9, 2011, H and the Defendant leased the instant house to the Defendant KRW 90,000,000, which is the difference between the previous lease deposit and the Plaintiff’s unpaid monthly rent of KRW 10,000,000, which is the difference between the previous lease deposit and KRW 8,000,000, which is the Plaintiff’s unpaid monthly rent, and on the other hand, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s debt of KRW 8,130,000 to the seizure
Consolidated, the plaintiff and the defendant obtained the consent of H, and on May 9, 201, the house of this case is of this case to the plaintiff.