beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 14, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C (hereinafter “C”) under which construction works to build a new building of 144 square meters and an appurtenant building 21.6 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) in Haan-gun, Gyeongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant on July 16, 2010, and KRW 20,000,000 on July 19, 2010, and KRW 35,00,000 on July 27, 2010.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary and determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff paid KRW 35,00,00 to the Defendant, who possessed a name of the director of the above company as a matter of the contract price with C, who did not exist. The Defendant asserted that the said amount is a arche construction cost between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff that did not exist and refused to return it. The Defendant received the said amount from the Plaintiff without any legal ground and obtained profits, and thereby incurred losses to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 35,00,000 as a return of unjust enrichment, and the delay damages therefrom.
B. (1) In determining the restitution of unjust enrichment by benefit, the person who claims the return of unjust enrichment by benefit bears the burden of proving that the cause of the payment is specified, and that the cause of the payment is null and void or cancelled, and that the other party who received the benefit does not have the burden of proving that the payment has a legal cause.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da54283 delivered on May 14, 1996, 98Da61593 delivered on April 27, 1999, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Da41574 delivered on October 23, 2008, etc.). (2) With respect to the Defendant’s payment of KRW 35,000,000 from the Plaintiff without any justifiable reason, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 11, and 13 are alone stated.