1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, around 1993, lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant by September 19, 2006. The Plaintiff leased KRW 71.4 million to the Defendant by September 19, 2006.

The defendant is obligated to return the loan to the plaintiff.

B. Around 1993, the Defendant returned unjust enrichment to the Defendant’s family members, on the ground that he/she purchased a name-based membership right 17 square meters under the name of the Defendant’s family members, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant registered and used only the Defendant and the Defendant’s family members with the removal of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return KRW 3 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

A. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, and 22 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) that the plaintiff's assertion on the return of loan is insufficient to admit the plaintiff's assertion in light of Eul's evidence Nos. 15 and the counter-proof submitted by the defendant, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if it is assumed that C or the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s Cityberter around November 24, 1993, received KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff and kept it in custody, it is reasonable to view that the credit based on the loan had already expired.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

B. As seen earlier, unlike the assertion on the return of unjust enrichment, even if the Plaintiff assumed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant around 1993, the claim for return of unjust enrichment had already expired by prescription.

In this regard, the plaintiff argued that the defendant sold membership rights in recent years, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and there was a claim for return of unjust enrichment only at the time of selling membership rights as alleged by the plaintiff.

It cannot be deemed that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted at this time.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.