beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a golf membership member of the instant golf club with the trade name “A” and “A” that runs the golf membership trade brokerage business.
(B) On October 23, 2013, the sales contract of the instant golf membership was entrusted with the brokerage of purchase. On November 23, 2013, the remainder of the purchase price of KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 90,000,000, and KRW 700,000, and KRW 550,000,000, and KRW 101,250,000, in total, were paid as the purchase cost of the instant golf membership. B around November 10, 203, the Defendant paid KRW 45,00,000 out of the said money to the Defendant who runs a golf membership trade brokerage business in the instant case. (c) Thereafter, the transaction of the instant golf membership upon the Plaintiff’s request for the purchase was not sexually dead. The Defendant did not assert the purport of return of KRW 45,00,00 as other loans to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not have any dispute over the instant golf membership purchase cost.
2. Determination:
A. The plaintiff, who was requested by the plaintiff to intermediate the purchase of golf membership in this case, paid 50,000,000 won out of the purchase price to the defendant in the qualification of the plaintiff's deceased person or his representative. Thus, as long as the golf membership in this case did not have sexual intercourse, the defendant is obligated to return the above 50,000,000 won as unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.
As recognized earlier, the Plaintiff entrusted B with the brokerage of the purchase of golf membership in this case.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff entrusted the Defendant with the purchase price of golf membership KRW 50,000,000, out of the purchase price for golf membership in this case by designating B as a private person or agent, and there is no other evidence
The plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that there was a claim contract relationship such as direct delegation between the plaintiff and the defendant does not need to be examined further.