1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, with the exception that the Plaintiff added “2.2 additional determination” to the assertion that the Plaintiff added to this court, and that the “4.00,000 won” as “5,40,000 won” as “5,40,000 won for the last day of the judgment of the first instance,” is the same as the ground for the judgment of the first instance, except that the Plaintiff deemed “5,40,000 won” as “5,40,000 won” under the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff paid KRW 58,00,000 to the defendant in order to acquire the right to operate the store of this case. Since the contract of this case was cancelled, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 58,00,000 to the plaintiff. Even though it was not revealed in the pretext of paying KRW 58,00,000 for domestic affairs, the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 58,000 to the defendant is not in dispute between the parties, and since the plaintiff revoked or cancels the contract that is the cause of payment of the above money, the defendant is obligated to return the above money to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment

B. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who benefits from another person’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes damage to another 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). The instant case pertains to the following: