1. The plaintiff's appeal and the selective claim in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the defendant misleads or induces the plaintiff; and (b) the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment claimed in the trial are as follows: (c) the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows; and (d) the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff deposited the proceeds from the transfer of the right to operate the gas station, etc. to the Defendant bank account at the request of the network C, and the Defendant knew that the money remitted by the Plaintiff is the proceeds from the transfer of the right to operate. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. In a case where a party to a judgment contract directly provides a third party who has a different contractual relationship with the other party by shortening the process of performance through the instruction of the other party to the contract (if the benefits have been provided under the so-called triar relationship), and the benefits have been provided to the other party to the contract as well as the benefits have been provided to the other party to the contract. Thus, either party to the contract may not file a claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the other party received the benefits from the third party without legal grounds.

In such a case, if one of the parties to a contract directly claims a return of unjust enrichment against a third party on the ground that there is a defect, such as invalidity, etc. in legal relations with the party causing the performance of the contract, it would not only transfer the risk burden under a contract entered into under his/her own responsibility to the third party, but also cause a result contrary to the principle of contract law, but also it is unfair by a third party which is the beneficiary to infringe the right

Supreme Court Decision 9Da66564, 66571 delivered on August 23, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 99Da66571 delivered on December 26, 2003