The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and such reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who obtains a benefit from another person’s property or labor without any legal ground and causes damage to another person shall return such benefit.” The burden of proving that there is no legal ground in the case of so-called unjust enrichment for which one party claims the return of the benefit upon his/her own will and on the ground that the benefit was not legally attributable. In this case, the person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment must assert and prove that the cause was extinguished due to the invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc. of the act of payment, and that there was no legal ground in the case of the so-called erroneous remittance on the ground that there was no ground that there was no ground that it would be the cause for the act of payment. It is difficult to prove that the person who sought the return of unjust enrichment was remitted to another person by mistake in the case where the so-called unjust enrichment was sought on the ground that he/she infringed on another person’s property right, etc., and thus, the court below’s determination on the grounds that the other party to the claim for return of unjust enrichment had legitimate title (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da171, supra.).