The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional portions, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Following the first instance court’s decision No. 4 pages 1 and 2 of the first instance court’s decision, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appears to have been a person with interest.” Then, the Plaintiff added “(3) that the Plaintiff did not separately set the due date or interest while remitting the said money to the Defendant.”

The following shall be added to four pages 4 of the first instance judgment:

【C】

If the plaintiff did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff, the defendant paid the above money without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant should return the above money to the plaintiff with unfair profits.

On the other hand, Article 741 of the Civil Code provides that "a person who without any legal cause derives a benefit from the property or service of another person and thereby causes a loss to the other person shall return such benefit.

“......”

In the case of so-called unjust benefits that one of the parties has paid a certain amount of benefits according to his/her own will and requests the return of the benefits on the grounds that there is no legal ground, the burden of proof on the fact that there is no legal ground is the person

In this case, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove that there was no legal cause due to the extinguishment of the cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., along with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). As to the instant case, this case was examined as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion that he/she paid the said money to the Defendant is not recognized; and (b) such circumstance alone, it shall be deemed that the Defendant benefits without any legal cause.