Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

A. On March of the same year, the Plaintiff purchased the CMW 502D vehicles destroyed by a traffic accident on February 1, 2018 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) from the Defendant and paid KRW 8,00,000 to the Defendant more than the reasonable market price of the said vehicle, by deceiving the said vehicle to be 1,00,000 km, while purchasing the said vehicle from the Defendant around March of the same year. Without any legal ground, the Defendant unduly unjust enrichment from the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 8,00,000,000, and thereby, the Plaintiff sustained the same amount of damage.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seek payment of the above KRW 8,000,000 and damages for delay against the Defendant.

B. 1) In the case of so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has provided certain benefits according to his/her own intent and claiming return of the benefits on the grounds that the benefits were not legally attributable, the burden of proving that there was no legal basis is the party asserting the return of unjust enrichment. In this case, the party seeking the return of unjust enrichment must prove that the Plaintiff purchased the instant vehicle from the Defendant around March 3, 2018, which is 14,376 km, with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment and the existence of the cause is invalid, cancelled, and cancelled, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018).

However, in light of the above legal principles, the health team, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff alone, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff to sell the vehicle as to whether the Defendant is the odometer or the above vehicle with four wheelss.

The defendant's unjust enrichment of the above 8,000,000 won without any legal ground is not recognized, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion remains.