674万索赔成功驳回！京尹律所程敬然律师代理股权投资背景下的给付型不当得利纠纷案，胜诉！

Core Points - The case revolves around a dispute regarding the payment of a guarantee fee of over 5.45 million yuan, which the defendant Wang claimed was held temporarily based on a compensation agreement, while the plaintiff argued it constituted unjust enrichment [2][4][9] - The court ruled that the defendant's receipt of the funds was based on a valid contractual obligation under the compensation agreement, thus not constituting unjust enrichment [6][9] Group 1: Investment Agreements - In February and November 2011, the parties signed two joint investment agreements to establish a private equity investment fund, detailing investment proportions and profit-sharing mechanisms [2] - In June 2014, the investors signed an investment memorandum to convert the fund investment into shares of a company listed on the New Third Board, with Wang acting as the representative for shareholding [2] Group 2: Guarantee Fee Agreement - In June 2014, Wang signed a compensation agreement stipulating that if the annualized return on the shares exceeded 15%, 20% of the excess would be paid as a guarantee fee to a third-party investment company [2] - The agreement served as a risk-hedging arrangement for investment returns [2] Group 3: Payment Dispute - In April 2015, Wang reduced his holdings and was required to pay a total guarantee fee of over 5.45 million yuan, which he communicated to the investors [3] - The plaintiff later discovered that the third-party investment company had not received the payment and demanded a refund from Wang, who refused, citing the ongoing obligation under the compensation agreement [3][4] Group 4: Court Ruling - The court confirmed the legality of the compensation agreement and ruled that Wang was obligated to pay the guarantee fee to the third-party investment company [6][9] - The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, stating that the defendant's receipt of funds was legally justified [6][9]