1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows: (a) except for the addition of the following judgments to the matters asserted by the plaintiff in the trial of the court of first instance under Chapter 5, Chapter 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, (c) it is citing

2. On October 26, 2007, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the Plaintiff asserts that the said extinctive prescription was interrupted since the Defendant prepared a certificate of confirmation (Evidence A4) to the Plaintiff or approved the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price in the conversation with the Plaintiff on May 2013, 2013.

However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant approved the obligation to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of this case on the sole basis of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 4, and Gap evidence 10-9.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that there was no room for the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment of this case if he won won in the previous case (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Da38400, Busan District Court Decision 2014Na2829), even though there was a de facto obstacle that could not exercise rights objectively until the time the judgment of the previous case became final and conclusive, the defendant's assertion for the completion of the statute of limitations constitutes an abuse of rights

However, de facto disability does not constitute “when it is impossible to exercise the right” under Article 166(1) of the Civil Act, and such circumstance alone as alleged by the Plaintiff does not constitute an abuse of right against the principle of good faith.

In addition, the descriptions of Gap evidence 7, 8, 9, and Gap evidence 11-1, 2, and 3 cannot be deemed to have a de facto obstacle to which the defendant cannot exercise his/her right objectively.

The plaintiff's abuse of rights.