계금반환청구
1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff provided that “the Plaintiff would make a gold payment to the Defendant” around 2010, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,480,000 to the Defendant 40 times from March 31, 2010 to March 14, 2017. As such, the Defendant ought to return the said amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment and delay damages.
2. Determination
A. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes a loss to the other person shall return such benefit.”
The burden of proving that there is no legal ground in the case of the so-called unjust enrichment that one party claims the return of the benefits after having paid a certain amount of benefits according to his/her own will on the grounds that there is no legal ground.
In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., and that in the same case as the so-called mistake remittance made on the ground that there was no ground that the act of payment was caused, he/she shall assert and prove the fact that
(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.). B.
The fact that the Plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 30,480,00 to the Defendant during the period from March 31, 2010 to March 14, 2017 is no dispute between the parties.
However, the Plaintiff paid the above money for any reason, which was unable to specifically assert and prove whether the above cause was null and void, cancelled, or cancelled, or whether there was no legal cause from the beginning, such as the so-called mistake remittance, and the testimony of the witness C of the Party A and the witness of the Party C are insufficient to recognize it.