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. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of addition as stated in Paragraph 2 as to the part additionally claimed in the court of first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

Part 3 of the second judgment of the court of first instance is "2016.11."

The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "after concluding a lease contract" in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Part 15 of the second judgment of the court of first instance is "after entering into a temporary lease contract". The second judgment is "after entering into a temporary lease contract."

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court "A 1, 13" shall be understood as "A 1, 11, 13".

Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court is "A 10" in Part 11 of the judgment of the first instance, and "A 10 only shall be written."

According to the third written judgment of the first instance court, the third written evidence “A 14” shall be “Evidence A 2 through 9, 14”.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that even if the defendant's false statement to the plaintiff does not constitute a crime of fraud under the Criminal Act, the defendant should return the above KRW 10,036,666 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 unjust enrichment in the case of unjust enrichment for which one of the parties has performed a certain benefit at his own will and then claims the return of the benefit on the grounds that there is no legal ground.

In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall be null and void, cancelled, and cancelled together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment.