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. Basic facts

A. On July 2006, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been living in the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea, while traveling in the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea.

B. In accordance with the agreement with C, the Plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 20 million on December 27, 2006 and KRW 30 million on January 9, 2007 to D account, which is the wife of C, respectively, and D remitted the amount of KRW 14.7 million out of the amount remitted by the Plaintiff on December 29, 2006 to the Defendant.

C. Around March 2008, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Yangsan Police Station on the charge of embezzlement, etc. Around March 2008, the prosecutor of the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office issued a disposition on October 30, 2008 against C and D, by means of the lack of evidence.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Despite the fact that the Defendant did not lend money to C, C received KRW 14.7 million from the money remitted from the Plaintiff via the Plaintiff’s account as a repayment for the loan to C, which constitutes unjust enrichment, and thus, it should be returned to the Plaintiff as it constitutes unjust enrichment.

B. The Plaintiff intended to borrow money from C in trust and trust, and C embezzled while keeping the said money, and the Defendant conspiredd with C to deduct the amount of the embezzlement from his account.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by joint tort.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The issue of determining the claim for return of unjust enrichment is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant received the above KRW 14.7 million as repayment even though the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was not sufficient to support the fact that the Defendant lent money to C, and there is no other evidence to support this.

Even if the defendant acquired profits without any legal ground as alleged by the plaintiff, in this case, the person entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment to the defendant is not the plaintiff but C or D, so this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.