beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1. Purport of the claim.
Reasons
Plaintiff
The summary of the argument is that the defendant, through D on April 13, 2010, borrowed the above KRW 30 million from the plaintiff, and thus, he/she is obligated to repay it, and even if not, he/she has the obligation to return it as unjust enrichment.
On April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s account at the Defendant’s request.
[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the fact that there was no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the entire argument as to the loan claim, the loan certificate or power of attorney, etc. under the defendant's name has not been prepared. In light of the above-mentioned facts and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone, the defendant borrowed the above KRW 30 million.
It is insufficient to recognize that or D granted the power of representation in connection with the loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
In a case where the performance under the contract becomes the benefit of the other party to the contract as well as a third party, if the other party to the contract who provided the benefit can claim the return of unjust enrichment directly from the third party in addition to claiming the return of unjust enrichment from the other party to the contract, the contract party who provided the benefit may not claim the return of unjust enrichment from the third party in addition to claiming the return of unjust enrichment from the other party to the contract, which would result in a violation of the basic principles of contract law by imposing the risk burden under one’s own responsibility on the third party. In addition, the contract party who provided the benefit under the contract would be given preferential treatment compared to the general creditor of the other party to the contract, which is the debtor, thereby impairing the general creditor’s interest, and the third party who provided the benefit violates the right
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da48568, Nov. 10, 2011). As seen above, the Plaintiff is KRW 30 million upon D’s request.