beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
after the filing of an appeal.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., "decision on the cause of claim" in Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, i.e., "decision on the cause of claim" in Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and i.e., "decision on the cause of claim" in Section 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and ii) except for addition
2. Judgment on the conjunctive cause of claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant received KRW 88.2 million from the plaintiff without any legal ground and received profits equivalent to the above amount by paying it to D as transfer price of shares. Thus, the defendant should pay 88.2 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. In the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties who made a certain performance according to his/her own will and subsequently claims the return of the benefits on the grounds that there is no legal ground, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground is the person who
In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall, along with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, prove that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., and shall prove that the remittance was made by mistake in the same case as the so-called mistake remittance made on the ground that there was no ground for the act of payment from the beginning.
This is distinguishable from the burden of proving that the other party to the claim for return of unjust enrichment has a legitimate title to the claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the other party has gained a benefit by infringing another person’s property right, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). The Plaintiff is the cause of the act of payment, such as a lending contract, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant