부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the main claim expanded in the trial and the additional conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the primary claim is as follows: (a) evidence additionally submitted in the trial and lack of recognition of the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the deposit contract; and (b) other than rejection of the written evidence No. 20 to No. 24 of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the written reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. As to the conjunctive claim
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if the remittance amount of this case (1 billion won) is an investment amount and a profit (investment profit) other than a custody amount, as testified in the relevant criminal case by the Defendant, and the amount of KRW 400 million should be reverted to the Defendant and the J at the rate of 5:1, the share of J is approximately KRW 66 million (=profit amount of KRW 40 million x 1/6).
The Plaintiff erroneously delivered the share of J to the Defendant, and the Defendant unduly unjust enrichment.
The defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the share of 66 million won and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) The party’s burden of proof as to the so-called unjust enrichment that there is no legal basis for the so-called unjust enrichment for the benefit of which the payment was made at his/her own will and the return was made on the ground that the payment was not a legal ground. In such cases, the party seeking the return of unjust enrichment must assert and prove that there is no legal ground for the extinguishment of the cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc. along with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). In other words, there is no legal ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant made unjust enrichment to the Defendant by erroneous delivery of the share of J to the Defendant. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s argument, the Defendant received the remittance (1 billion won) from the Plaintiff around August 2014, and the KRW 500 million from the Defendant’s KRW 100 million.