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.

1. The plaintiff's assertion is a rental business operator who owns a multi-family house located in the following city, and the defendant is a pilot who participated in the repair work of the D building.

The Plaintiff remitted total amount of KRW 24,455,750 from January 11, 2017 to March 14, 2017 to the Defendant as remuneration construction cost. However, among those, KRW 10,425,750 remitted on March 6, 2017 and KRW 10,620,000 remitted on March 14, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant remittance amount”) did not transfer to the Defendant any money irrelevant to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant, as unjust enrichment, has a duty to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 21,045,750 (=10,425,750 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of rendering a judgment of the first instance and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. In the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties to the judgment requested the return of a certain amount of benefit upon his/her own will on the grounds that there is no legal ground, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground is a person who asserts the return

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 that the act of payment was caused, he/she shall assert and prove the fact that

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). The Plaintiff sought the return of the instant remittance on the ground that the instant remittance amount was not a cause for payment, i.e., money unrelated to the Defendant, and that there was no cause for the act of payment. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone.