beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff, in collusion with the co-defendant B of the first instance court on December 11, 2006, the appraisal by the defendant C at the 1950,48 million Won-gun, Jeonnam-gun, the plaintiff-owned on December 11, 2006 and the appraisal by the defendant C at the 6th ground be
H. hereinafter referred to as “the closing of the instant case”).
2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant resort in order to establish the liability for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff had committed an illegal act to be sold to e.g., at will., seeking unjust enrichment of KRW 57.6 million. (b) The burden of proving the occurrence of damages in return of unjust enrichment lies in the claimant for return of unjust enrichment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da41574, 41581, Oct. 23, 2008). Since the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case is lost the ownership of the instant resort, it should be recognized that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant resort in order to establish the Defendant’s liability for return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff. Therefore, in light of the following facts or circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant resort, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant resort.
) The trustee in bankruptcy filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 1.5 billion of damages and damages for delay as part of the claim against the Plaintiff, alleging that the Plaintiff, as a working-level manager for the Credit Union, failed to perform his/her duty of care as a person responsible for the Credit Union, (Seoul District Court 2001Gahap4950). The first instance court of the instant case, “the Plaintiff, through the joint Defendant B of the first instance trial, newly constructed the instant paper and operated the instant paper, thereby paying for the amount of feed necessary for the instant paper book instead of the EF.