1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial is dismissed.

3. Appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of Paragraph 2 to the judgment of the plaintiff as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment which the plaintiff added in preliminary in the court of first instance at the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with

During the last period of the third party, the Defendant’s appeal from the first to the fourth one shall be brought to the following:

“The Defendant appealed, but on May 30, 2019, the final appeal was declared by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Decision 2019Da218677) on the grounds of the filing of the appellate brief.”

2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment added as the conjunctive interest

A. If the Plaintiff’s assertion did not cause a loan for consumption, which is KRW 210,00,000, out of the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the account under the name of the Defendant, it means that the Defendant obtained the above 210,000,000 won from the Plaintiff without the cause. Therefore, the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment KRW 210,000 and the legal interest or delay damages therefrom.

B. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides that “A person who gains a benefit from another person’s property or service without any legal cause and thereby causes a loss to another person shall return such benefit.”

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 will and then claims the return of the benefit on the grounds that the benefit is not a legal ground, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground

In such cases, a 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 has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., and that the so-called mistake remittance was remitted by mistake in the case of the so-called mistake remittance on the ground that there was no ground that the act of payment was not