1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The basic facts of the claim: (a) the Plaintiff (son) and the Defendant (son) completed a marriage report on August 21, 2015, and they were married, but they were divorced on May 30, 2017 after having been sentenced to a judicial divorce judgment on May 11, 2017 in the Sungwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch branch branch, which became final and conclusive on May 30, 2017; (b) the Plaintiff paid KRW 13.5 million to the Defendant around May 9, 2016, when the marriage was in progress, may be recognized either by the parties or by the overall purport of evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, and 2, and there is no evidence that interfered with this.

2. (1) The plaintiff's claim determination (1) paid KRW 13.5 million to the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff maintains a matrimonial relationship, and the defendant's failure to pay the above money and the cause for payment of the above money ceases to exist due to the failure of matrimonial relationship due to the failure of the defendant's payment of the above money. Thus, the defendant

(2) Therefore, in the case of so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has paid a certain amount of benefits according to his/her own will and the return of the benefits is claimed on the grounds that there is no legal ground, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground is an unjust enrichment.

In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall prove and prove that there has been no legal grounds due to the extinguishment of the grounds due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., together with the existence of the facts causing the act of payment.

(3) In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Plaintiff paid money on the condition that the Plaintiff maintain a matrimonial relationship as alleged by the Plaintiff solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, in light of the foregoing legal doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018).

It is not enough to recognize whether or not the defendant has withdrawn from the above money, or whether or not the marriage has reached the bankruptcy due to the defendant's running away from home.

(4) On the other hand, the defendant's money is the original defendant.