부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part that is additionally determined as stated in the following 2, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
(The findings of fact and judgments of the first instance court shall not be different, even considering the allegations and evidence added in the trial. 2. Additional decision
A. As to the claim for reimbursement of expenses under Article 688(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “the Plaintiff has a comprehensive delegation relationship with the Defendant regarding the management of all the affairs under the construction contract with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff subrogated for the construction cost under the delegation from the Defendants, the Plaintiff has a right to claim reimbursement of expenses equivalent to the amount stated in the claim under Article 688(1) of the Civil Act against
As long as there is no evidence that the delegation contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants regarding the handling of affairs under the construction contract, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine the remainder of the issues.
B. As to the claim for reimbursement of expenses under Article 739(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff asserts to the purport that the Defendants have the right to claim reimbursement of expenses equivalent to the amount stated in the purport of the claim pursuant to Article 739(1) of the Civil Act, since the Plaintiff subrogated for construction cost in the course of handling the affairs for the Defendants
On the other hand, the plaintiff seems to have paid the construction cost as his own business for his own interest, and it is difficult to view the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone that the plaintiff subrogated for the construction cost in the course of handling the business for the defendants without any obligation. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without any further review on the remainder
C. As to the claim for reimbursement under Articles 480 and 482 of the Civil Act