beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant B, along with Defendant D, lent money to D to operate a mobile phone sales store as a partnership business. The Plaintiff paid KRW 2 million to D, and incurred more than KRW 1.2 million in the sublease of the sales store, KRW 4 million in the monthly rent, KRW 4 million in the monthly rent, and KRW 5 million in the monthly rent for Defendant B, and lent money to Defendant B.
In addition, without any reason, Defendant C received KRW 500,00 from the Plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million, Defendant C is obligated to pay KRW 500,000,000, and damages for delay on each of the said money.
2. The fact that the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to operate a mobile phone sales store as a partnership business does not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 654,800 to Defendant B. The Plaintiff appears to have paid KRW 1.2 million to the sub-lease F of the sub-lease 1,200,000 won of the sub-lease 1,200,000 monthly rent of the first floor mobile phone sales store in the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E-gu, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,00,000 to Defendant B solely based on the above recognition
(E) In light of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire argument, the Plaintiff invested part of the money to operate a mobile phone store with Defendant B, and the Plaintiff directly operated the mobile phone store with Defendant B, but it appears that the Plaintiff could not return the investment amount to the Plaintiff due to business loss since the mobile phone store was closed on or around December 2012). In addition, in a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment, the burden of proof on the facts of the general establishment requirement of unjust enrichment without legal cause is borne by the requester of return.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da61593 delivered on April 27, 199, etc.). Defendant C received KRW 250,000 in return for introducing D to the Plaintiff, and without any justifiable reason, KRW 500,000 from the Plaintiff.