부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. On September 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a discount agreement with the Seocho-si, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cheongcheon-do”) on the issuance of a promissory note from a clean system and the payment of the discount of the promissory note (hereinafter “instant discount agreement”) to a person designated by the clean system.
On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note in the form of an electronic bill (hereinafter referred to as “instant promissory note”) from the Clean System, as indicated below, in accordance with the discount agreement of the Promissory Notes, and the same month as the designation of the Clean System, depending on the designation of the Clean System.
5. Of the discount amount of the said Promissory Notes, KRW 15,600,000, which was part of the said discount amount, was remitted to the Defendant’s financial account, and the remitter was indicated as the “Cheong-gu Accounting Committee”.
On January 31, 2015, Plaintiff 37,609,000 on September 31, 2015, and the bill of this case was refused payment on February 2, 2015, for reasons of non-transaction.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant is the actual addressee of the Promissory Notes, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff as the obligor.
However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including a serial number, if any) is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is the addressee of the Promissory Notes in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the text of the Promissory Notes in this case, the addressee is the plaintiff and the defendant does not constitute the obligor of the Promissory Notes since there is no indication as to the defendant
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. The plaintiff's claim 1 based on the seller's warranty liability is as follows: (1) the defendant raised the cattle breeding fee in the clean system.