1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, upon C’s instruction, remitted the Defendant’s passbook KRW 10 million on April 1, 2015, KRW 5 million on April 2, 2015, KRW 10 million on April 9, 2015, KRW 20 million on June 10, 2015, KRW 5 million on June 11, 2015, and KRW 80 million on July 30, 2015.

B. On April 2015, the Plaintiff and C agreed to:

(hereinafter “instant agreement”) 1) Osan-si D 166m2 (hereinafter “instant land”)

(ii) Ascertainment that the Plaintiff deposited the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million out of KRW 50 million with the prop to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of the instant land in the name of the prop and handle it in consultation with each other in any subsequent business process, by mutual agreement, through joint investment (1/2) in the lease of commercial buildings and the sale in lots and the development of real estate by delegation of authority with the prop. C

3) The title of the current lease relationship may be substituted by the Plaintiff. 【The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) C had the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant, with the Defendant’s permission, construction of a commercial building on the instant land and lease it to the Plaintiff to the effect that 1/2 of the revenue amount would be paid. The Plaintiff had the Plaintiff wired KRW 80 million to the Defendant’s passbook six times. Therefore, the Defendant was obligated to return the amount of KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return it to the Defendant as unjust enrichment. 2) The Plaintiff lent KRW 80 million to the Defendant on the instant land on condition that the Plaintiff would develop the commercial building on the instant land.

Since the above loan contract for consumption has become null and void due to the non-fulfillment of the condition, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 80 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion.