beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The reasons why a party member of the judgment of the court of first instance states on this case are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff in the court of first instance.
Around June 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed 5,00,000 won from the Defendant (interest of 5% per month), 5,000,000 won around April 201, and 10,000 won around October 2012, and 5,000,000 won around March 2013, and 26,326,586 won in total when calculating the interest rate (40% per annum) under the Interest Limitation Act at the time of the Plaintiff’s repayment. Since the Plaintiff erroneously borrowed 1,326,586 won (interest of 25,00,000 won (interest of 1,326,586 won per annum) and interest of 96,184,420 won as at the time of repayment, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the difference in interest shall be repaid to the Plaintiff and delay damages shall be paid to the Plaintiff.
In a lawsuit seeking restitution of unjust enrichment, the burden of proving the fact that profit was made without legal cause is borne by the claimant of unjust enrichment.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da61593 Decided April 27, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Da72786 Decided May 29, 2008, etc.). According to the evidence No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 80,170,000 from its own account to its name during the period from August 17, 2010 to December 31, 2014 is recognized.
However, the burden of proving that the above amount was deposited without any legal ground is the Plaintiff. According to the evidence Nos. 1 (the statement of free savings deposit) and Nos. 1 and 2 (the statement of each transaction statement), the Plaintiff and the Defendant can only verify the fact that the account transfer transaction was made several times and several times between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the evidence No. 4 (Evidence No. 4) merely pertains to a part of the amount borrowed from the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, exceeds the amount borrowed from the Defendant.