부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The fact that Defendant B agreed to pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff on March 31, 200 does not conflict between the parties. Thus, Defendant B is liable to pay the said agreed amount to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.
B. The Plaintiff, as the heir of the network D, succeeded to KRW 200,000,00 for the net D’s sales amount to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay KRW 30,000,000 out of the above sales amount to the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is without merit.
2. Determination on Defendant B’s assertion of extinctive prescription
A. Defendant B asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed amount against Defendant B had expired by prescription. As such, Defendant B’s claim for the agreed amount against the Plaintiff’s above agreed amount was ten years, and the period of extinctive prescription is as seen earlier, and the date of the above agreement was March 31, 200, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed amount against Defendant B was filed on January 14, 2015, which was ten years after the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed amount against Defendant B was extinguished by prescription.
B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that, around 2006, Defendant B approved the Plaintiff’s obligation by repaying the amount of KRW 5,000,000, which is a part of the above agreed amount, and thus, the extinctive prescription was interrupted. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the allegation.
In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant B promised to pay the above agreed amount to the plaintiff around September 2014, the plaintiff approved the obligation or renounced the prescription benefits. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant B promised to pay the agreed amount to the plaintiff only with the testimony of the witness E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
C. Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion on this is with merit, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit.