1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The time limit for subrogation among the plaintiff's conjunctive claims added at the trial.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and each evidence submitted by the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the conjunctive claim added by this court, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 28,286,50,00 for the transport of E in spite of the transport of E, and the Defendant received KRW 29,146,70 for the transport of the said cargo from E. If the Defendant did not have any contractual relationship with E in connection with the transport of the said cargo, the said money that the Defendant received from E was derived from the Defendant without any legal cause. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 28,286,50 for the Plaintiff who transported E’s cargo and delayed payment damages (Chapter 1) to the representative director G of the F Co., Ltd. (Chapter 2). Since the Plaintiff has a claim for the transport charges as stated in the purport of the instant claim, and the Defendant pays the transport charges to the Defendant. Accordingly, G has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment in subrogation of the Defendant.

(Chapter 2). (b)

Judgment

1. Regarding Chapter 1, the fact that E remitted KRW 29,746,100 to the Defendant’s bank account does not conflict between the parties, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone lacks to deem the above money remitted from E as a profit without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion based on this premise is without merit.

Rather, the court below witness E.