1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) repaid the Plaintiff’s debt 650,000,000 won to the Defendant (on June 10, 201, the date on which the obligation arises) by June 10, 2012; (b) on June 10, 2012, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of a debt repayment contract with the effect that the Plaintiff loses the benefit of time and compulsory execution is recognized (No. 1, No. 2012, No. 139, 200, and hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 98,02,940 against the Defendant. The grounds alleged as the grounds for the claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 262,50,000 from the Defendant are as follows: (i) the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 262,50,000 from the Defendant and did not have borrowed KRW 650,000 as indicated in the instant notarial deed; (ii) the instant notarial deed was made by means of false conspiracy with the Defendant; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s principal and interest within the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act among the principal and interest of the Plaintiff’s borrowings against the Defendant; and (iii) the Defendant was paid by the Defendant in excess of KRW 98,02,940 from the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant’s assertion in the first instance trial on this point is that (i) the Plaintiff made the instant notarial deed in the sense that it was agreed to repay the above borrowed money after borrowing KRW 650,000 from the Defendant, and thus, the said notarial deed is not a false conspiracy, and (ii) the amount repaid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant does not exceed the sum of the principal and interest borrowed from the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have a claim for return of unjust enrichment.

The judgment of the first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

The reasons for the judgment are as follows: ① The instant notarial deed is not prepared by a false conspiracy, and ② the Plaintiff had the obligation to borrow money to the Defendant at the time of the preparation of the instant notarial deed, but was based on June 10, 201.