부당이득금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The parties' assertion
A. While the Plaintiff transferred 10 million won to the Defendant for the joint purchase of the Criet boarding tickets, while the Plaintiff was operating a skiing with the trade name “D” in Criet, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant lent KRW 10 million to E from March 20, 2012 to August 22, 2012, but received repayment of KRW 2 million from E and held a loan claim of KRW 8 million to E. The Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff for the joint purchase of premium, not for the joint purchase of premium, but for the payment of the above loan to E. The Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff for the payment of the loan claim of KRW 10 million to KRW 8 million and returned the remainder to E. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.
2. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff wired the Defendant’s corporate bank account with the Defendant’s corporate bank account; KRW 5 million with the Plaintiff’s trade name on October 22, 2012; KRW 10 million with the E name on November 1, 2012; and the Plaintiff wired KRW 10 million with the said name for the joint purchase of skiing grounds; and the Plaintiff wired the amount of KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff for the joint purchase of skiing grounds; and thereafter, the Defendant dialogueed that the Plaintiff would return the money to the Plaintiff upon the search of E (Evidence No. 38 and 9).
According to the evidence No. 1 submitted by the Defendant as the previous loan details to E, the Defendant wired the sum of KRW 9.2 million to E during the period from March 20, 2012 to March 22, 2012. Meanwhile, it is recognized that the Defendant received KRW 3 million on March 21, 2012, and KRW 10.8 million on March 22, 2012 from E’s Gomomo G, and in light of this, it is deemed that the monetary transaction with the Defendant and E had already been terminated on March 22, 2012.