1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 17, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/2 shares due to the sale of B apartment Nos. 112, 201 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) out of Dasan-dong, Yongsan-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-si (hereinafter “C”) due to voluntary auction.

B. Since then, although the Plaintiff requested C to deliver the apartment in this case, C took an attitude that it is difficult to deliver the apartment in arrears with management expenses for the apartment in this case, and on January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 10,185,380 won [6,804,660 won (management expenses for the section for common use) for the management expenses in arrears by C, 3,380,720 won (the arrears of the management expenses for the section for common use and the section for common use) to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 3,380,720 of the management expenses paid to the Defendant on January 8, 2015 to the Plaintiff, not the management expenses for the section for common use that is succeeded to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to pay the expenses that the head of the management office of the side of the side of the side of the Defendant to the effect that the Plaintiff could not take out the property if he did not pay the full amount of the management expenses in arrears. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund the said KRW 3,380,720, which was unjustly unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.

The payment of debt under Article 742 of the Civil Code is established only when the payer voluntarily pays the debt with knowledge of the absence of the debt, and was aware of the absence of the debt.

Even if there are circumstances that can be deemed to have been performed against his/her own free will, such as where repayment was enforced or it was inevitable to avoid de facto damage caused by the refusal of performance, the payer does not lose his/her right to claim the return (Supreme Court Decision 87Da432 Decided February 9, 198), but only the health unit and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff regarding the instant case.