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. From December 27, 2012 to July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 45,00,00 from the Defendant at the interest rate of 1% per month. The Defendant has the obligation to obtain the difference of KRW 64,136,065, which is the principal and interest of the loan, in excess of KRW 64,136,065 (= = 45,000,000 x 12% x 3199/365) x (319/365) x 88,360,000 (= KRW 31,200,000) 4,650,000, KRW 2,000, KRW 150,000, KRW 1360,000, KRW 40,000, KRW 360,000).

2. Determination:

A. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes a loss to the other person shall return such benefit.”

In the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has paid a certain amount of benefit according to his/her own will and then claims the return of the benefit on the grounds that the benefit is not a legal ground, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground

In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall assert and prove, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., and that in the same case as the so-called mistake remittance made on the ground that there was no ground for the act of payment from the beginning, he/she shall assert and prove the fact that

This is distinguished from Supreme Court Decision 87Meu205 Decided September 13, 198, which states that the other party to the claim for return of unjust enrichment has a legitimate title to the claim for return of unjust enrichment (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu205, Sept. 13, 198).