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. The Plaintiff asserted from the Defendant as gambling money from January 10, 2007 to February 3, 2007, with a total of KRW 200,000,000 per day or KRW 300,000 per day, and upon the Defendant’s request, set up a right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 20,000,000 per day. After cancelling the right to collateral security, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,00,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to refund the Plaintiff’s actual debt amount of KRW 6,30,000,000, exceeding the actual debt amount of KRW 6,300,000,000, and damages for delay from the day following the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case.
2. As to the Plaintiff’s co-ownership 1/6 of the Plaintiff’s co-ownership in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun on March 22, 2007, regarding the cause of the claim, the mortgagee D, who is the Defendant’s father, was set up on March 22, 2007, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 20,000,000, and the mortgage was revoked on December 4, 2009.
Furthermore, we examine whether or not the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,70,000 to the Defendant without any legal cause at the time of cancellation of the above right to collateral security, and there is a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment when the Plaintiff seeks the return of the benefits or unjust enrichment without any legal cause. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the legal act establishing the right to collateral security has to prove its existence. Thus, in this case where the Plaintiff seeks the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent the amount equivalent to the maximum debt amount of the above right to collateral security to the Plaintiff is nothing more than the denial and is also liable to prove the validity of the above right to collateral security. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is concerned.