beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim was from 2007 to 2011, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 562,755,000 to Defendant B’s account, and only KRW 7,200,000 during the said period was paid by Defendant B.
Therefore, the Defendants, as married couple, are obligated to return the amount equivalent to the above difference to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes a loss to the other person shall return such benefit.”
The burden of proving that there is no legal ground in the case of the so-called unjust enrichment that one party claims the return of the benefits after having paid a certain amount of benefits according to his/her own will on the grounds that there is no legal ground.
In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, claim and prove that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018). B.
Judgment
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted KRW 562,755,00 to the account in the name of defendant B from 2007 to 2011.
However, in light of the above legal principles, the above remittance alone is insufficient to deem the defendants to have benefited from the above money without any legal ground, and the plaintiff is responsible to prove that the money received by the defendant Eul constitutes unjust enrichment. However, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the defendant acquired the above money without any legal ground, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.