beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 10, 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the monetary rent of KRW 20,000,000 between the Defendant and the Defendant was prepared on July 10, 2020 due date for repayment and KRW 36% per annum (hereinafter “the instant monetary rent”). The Defendant’s spouse C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to borrow money.
B. On July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5,000,000 to the account in the name of D, and KRW 9,800,000 on July 13, 2015, and C on July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a certificate of confirmation that “C as king, on July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant, not directly, but directly, to the Plaintiff as part of KRW 20,00,00 that the Defendant intended to borrow.”
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 25,00,000 in total to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 5,000,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff on July 10, 2015 (i.e., KRW 10,200,00 that was remitted to C on July 13, 2015). The Defendant paid KRW 5,00,00,000 that was erroneously paid to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 25,00,000 that was paid to the Plaintiff) (i.e., KRW 20,000 that was erroneously paid to the Plaintiff). Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,00,00 that was erroneously paid to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff should return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.
B. As the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,00,000 among the KRW 9,80,00,000 that the Plaintiff deposited into D’s account on July 13, 2015 between the Plaintiff and C pursuant to a separate loan agreement concluded on July 15, 2015 between the Plaintiff and C, the Defendant is not unjust enrichment, and C already paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot seek a return of KRW 5,00,000 against the Defendant again by the instant lawsuit.
3. Determination
A. The fact that the instant lending contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on July 10, 2015 is without dispute between the parties, and the aforementioned evidence is examined.