beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: Gap evidence submitted additionally by this court which is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, and Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2 which are insufficient to accept the plaintiff's assertion, and the judgment of the conjunctive claim added by this court is identical to the part against the defendant among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Determination on the conjunctive claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Even if the Defendant did not donated KRW 100,000,000 from B, the Defendant merely agreed to receive KRW 50,000,000 as remuneration from the claim group of G building, but also received KRW 150,00,000 in excess of the above remuneration amount from B. 2) Accordingly, the Defendant was paid KRW 50,000,000 in excess of the above remuneration amount, without any legal cause, and is obligated to return it to the said claim group. The Plaintiff was liable to pay the claim amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 to the claim group of G building by distributing the agreed amount to the claim group of the claim group of G building by subrogation of the above claim group.
B. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides that "a person who benefits from the property or labor of another person without any legal ground and thereby causes damage to the other person shall return such benefits." The burden of proving that there is no legal ground is a person claiming return of unjust enrichment. The circumstances alleged by the plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone do not recognize that the defendant gains 100,000,000 won, less than 50,000,000 won which the defendant received from B without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment is without merit.