A Busan damages attorney's favorable judgment | A case in which the claim of a plaintiff seeking return of unjust enrichment was dismissed

The account the client shared at 🔗Daeryun's Busan office is as follows.

The client paid investment funds to an acquaintance who said he would run a massage business, and periodically received amounts described as investment returns.

Six months later, it turned out that the acquaintance's claim of running a business was a lie, and that he had borrowed money from people around him in the name of the investment funds received from the client, and had then delivered the money so raised back to the client under the name of investment returns.

The client accordingly requested that all of the investment funds be returned.

However, the acquaintance filed a lawsuit asserting that the money received from the client was a loan and that, because he had repaid more than the principal and interest of that loan, the client should pay back that excess amount.

The client accordingly requested Daeryun's help in order to defend against the lawsuit.

🔗An unjust enrichment return suit is a lawsuit claiming the return of a benefit unjustly obtained without legal cause.

Because this involves an individual having unjustly obtained a benefit, one may demand that the other party directly return that benefit, and because it is treated as a claim, the extinctive prescription under the Civil Act applies.

Generally, the extinctive prescription for an unjust enrichment return suit is 10 years from the date of becoming aware of the harm.

In order to file an unjust enrichment return suit, the following requirements must be satisfied.

1. There must be the fact of having obtained an unjust benefit through another person's property or labor
2. As a result, harm must be caused to another person
3. A causal relationship must exist between this unjust enrichment and the harm
4. There must be no legal cause for this act

And according to Supreme Court precedent, the burden of proof for this lies with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claims to have borrowed approximately 500 million won from the client to operate his own business. However, the attorney argued that the plaintiff had entirely failed to prove the specific terms of the loan agreement, such as the date the principal was lent, the repayment date, the interest rate, and the timing of interest payments.

The attorney argued that this was because the client had, in fact, merely made an investment in the plaintiff's business at the plaintiff's request, and that, therefore, no unjust enrichment could be established.

The plaintiff referred to the client as an investor while borrowing money from acquaintances, and because he has not repaid it, the client is receiving a great deal of resentment and blame.

Meanwhile, having been subjected to an absurd lawsuit demanding repayment of more than 200 million won, the client's stress reached an extreme, and the attorney argued that the client had suffered mental harm such as insomnia and loss of appetite as a result.

If you have been subjected to an unjust enrichment return suit, it is necessary to examine whether the unjust enrichment the other party claims is legitimate and whether it actually constitutes unjust enrichment.

By clearly presenting evidence that it is not unjust enrichment, the claim can be dismissed. In this process, it is advantageous to proceed together with the legal advisory of a specialist attorney.

Please obtain a 🔗damages specialist attorney at Daeryun Law Firm, where attorneys with extensive experience handling related cases do their utmost to assist in the interests of clients, a 🔗legal consultation.