The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the Housing Redevelopment Project Association established to implement a housing redevelopment project on the land size of 69,878 square meters in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and the plaintiff is the defendant's member.

B. D, a member of the instant lawsuit, filed an application against the Defendant for provisional disposition (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On August 12, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,300,000 to Defendant E-Law Firm for the appointment of an attorney-at-law in the instant lawsuit on August 12, 2014.

C. The Defendant’s former president of the partnership filed an application against members G, etc. for the provisional disposition of suspending the performance of duties (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On February 3, 2016, the lower court, upon making a provisional disposition order, appointed an acting director for the president of the partnership on the condition that the acting director’s remuneration for three months is prepaid, and on April 1, 2016, decided that “the remuneration of the acting director shall be KRW 3 million per month, and this shall be borne by the Defendant.”

On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9 million, a three-month portion of the acting director’s remuneration according to the decision of the instant lawsuit No. 2, to H, and the said money was paid as remuneration for the replaced president’s acting director.

E. On September 14, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the account under the name of the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3-8, 11-13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff paid for the Defendant a total of KRW 2.3 million (i.e., KRW 3., KRW 10 million,00,000,000; hereinafter “the instant expenditure”). This constitutes a work management under Article 734 of the Civil Act as an act to handle the Defendant’s urgent affairs without any obligation, while the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the relevant expense.