부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared and sent to the Defendant a written statement of performance (hereinafter “instant written statement of performance”) with the following content.
In October 2008, the Plaintiff, who is a letter of performance, borrowed KRW 45,00,000 to the Defendant as the deposit for the lease of an apartment in which the principal is currently residing, and paid KRW 320,000 as interest per month. However, the Plaintiff is unable to comply with it. In the future, the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 10,000,000 on September 15, 2014 and shall pay KRW 1,150,000 on November 15, 2014, and shall repay the total amount of the debt by December 31, 2016, together with the total amount of the debt borrowed for personal purposes.
[Reasons for Recognition] Entry B of Evidence No. 2
2. On May 2, 2008, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff lent KRW 63,850,000 to the Plaintiff as the deposit money for lease (hereinafter “instant loan”).
After that, the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant KRW 20,000,000 per month from January 2010 to October 2014, respectively, and KRW 1,200,000 per month (totaling KRW 77,60,000) and September 15, 2014.
Therefore, the Plaintiff paid 107,60,000 won exceeding KRW 63,850,000 to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 43,750,000 (=107,60,000 - KRW 63,850,00) as unjust enrichment.
3. Determination
A. The facts acknowledged earlier and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 revealed that the defendant lent KRW 65,00,000 to the plaintiff on May 2, 2008 by designating and lending KRW 320,000 per month interest (the statement in this case stated that the defendant lent KRW 45,00,000 to the plaintiff, but it appears to have appropriated KRW 20,000,000 that the plaintiff repaid to the plaintiff by the end of 2008, from the above KRW 65,000 to the above KRW 65,000,000, among the loans that the plaintiff repaid to the defendant by the end of 208, and it is recognized that the principal was additionally repaid to the plaintiff on September 15, 2014, which was after the written statement of the execution of this case, according to the above facts, the principal of the loan in this case is recognized.