In the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has paid a certain amount of benefit according to his/her own intent and claiming the return of the benefit on the ground that there is no legal ground (i.e., a person who asserts the return of unjust enrichment) and, at this time, the burden of proving that there is a legitimate right to hold the benefit (=the other party to the claim for return of unjust enrichment)

Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who obtains a benefit from another’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes loss to the other person shall return such benefit.” The burden of proving that there is no legal ground in the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties claims the return of the benefit on the ground that the benefit was not legally attributable after having made a certain benefit according to his/her own will. In this case, the person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment must assert and prove the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to the invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., and that the person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment has remitted the benefit by mistake in the case of the so-called wrongful

This is distinguished from the burden of proving that the other party to the claim for return of unjust enrichment has a legitimate title to the claim for return of unjust enrichment in the case of so-called unjust enrichment seeking return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the other party has gained a benefit by infringing

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff (Law Firm citizen, Attorneys Kim Seon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Hanmun, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Na12394 decided August 11, 2017

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence regarding the claim for loans (Ground of appeal No. 1)

Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was given and received, when the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proof as to the lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014).

The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 72 million to the Defendant during the period from June 19, 2006 to September 8, 2008, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable in accordance with the aforementioned legal doctrine and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by infringing on the right of omission or fair trial.

2. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment (ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3)

A. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who obtains a benefit from another’s property or service without any legal cause and thereby causes loss to the other person shall return such benefit.” In the case of so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties makes a certain benefit at his/her own will and claims the return of the benefit on the grounds that the benefit is not legally attributable, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground exists in the case of unjust enrichment for the benefit. In this case, the person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, that the cause was extinguished by the invalidation, revocation, cancellation, etc., and that there was no legal ground for the said act, and shall assert and prove the fact that the person who made the return of unjust enrichment has remitted the benefit by mistake in the case of so-called

This is distinguished from the so-called infringement unjust enrichment seeking a return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the other party has a legitimate title to the claim for return of unjust enrichment (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu205, Sept. 13, 198).

B. The court below rejected the plaintiff's conjunctive claim on the ground that the defendant was aware of the fact that he received money from the plaintiff, but the defendant could not immediately be deemed to have obtained any profit without any legal ground, and that the money received by the defendant constitutes unjust enrichment. The evidence alone, which alone was insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court’s determination is reasonable in line with the aforementioned legal doctrine. In so determining, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the omission of judgment or the distribution of burden of proof as to unjust enrichment

3. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)