1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2-2 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that each of the Defendant’s accounts was remitted to KRW 30 million on September 18, 2017 and KRW 20 million on September 19, 2017.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted the loan.

The reason for the claim was changed as unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account on two occasions; and (b) the Defendant gains profits without any legal cause; (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment; and (d) the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million and delay damages.

B. The Defendant lent KRW 50 million to C on February 2, 2017 and March 2017, and the Plaintiff, who was obligated to pay the removal cost, etc. to C, transferred KRW 50 million to the Defendant according to C’s proposal.

3. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another person’s property or service without any legal cause and thereby causes a loss to another person shall return such benefit.”

In the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has paid a certain amount of benefit according to his/her own will and then claims the return of the benefit on the grounds that the benefit is not a legal ground, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground

In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., and that in the same case as the so-called mistake remittance made on the ground that there was no ground that the act of payment was caused, he/she shall assert and prove the fact that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Sept. 18, 2017). The Defendant totaled KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on September 18, 2017, and KRW 20 million on September 19, 2017.