beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. On behalf of the Plaintiff, C, the father of the Plaintiff, borrowed 200 million won from E on December 12, 2008 at an interest rate of 200 million won per annum, and E transferred the above loan claim against D on August 31, 2009 to F.
D On March 12, 2010, F repaid the principal amount of KRW 100 million out of the above borrowed amount of KRW 200 million to F, and only KRW 100 million of the principal of the above borrowed amount remains.
F Around October 201, F decided to transfer the above loan claims against D to the Defendant, and C, a D’s agent, deposited KRW 5 million interest of the above loan claims to the Defendant in the name of the Plaintiff on October 9, 2011.
However, the above assignment contract between F and the defendant was rescinded, and according to the above contract rescission, the defendant is obligated to return the above five million won which he received from the plaintiff to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
2. We examine the judgment. The evidence directly supporting the plaintiff's claim is limited to the statement of No. 3 and the testimony of the witness of the trial court. The above evidence can be seen in addition to the whole purport of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the defendant. In other words, the plaintiff asserted that at the time when the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case, the defendant acquired the plaintiff's obligation 200 million won to F and remitted the defendant's obligation 5 million won interest per month to the defendant. However, at the trial, the plaintiff's father C, the agent of D, transferred the loan claim 100 million won to the defendant under the name of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's father C, the agent of D, transferred the interest amount of the debtor, the amount of the bond, the claim of transfer, etc. to the defendant, and the plaintiff's assertion that even if the plaintiff's assertion is consistent with the plaintiff's father C, the plaintiff's father, who was the defendant, it is difficult to obtain unjust enrichment from the defendant, and the plaintiff transferred it to the defendant.