손해배상(기)
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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following 2. 2. to the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The part added by the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, acquired KRW 193,40,000 under the pretext of fees under the management agreement of the instant case, by deceiving the Plaintiff, and filed the instant claim against the Defendant. As to the title of the instant court concerning the cause of the claim, the cause of the instant claim is “to seek the return of the said amount on the ground that the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment without any legal cause,” and does not include “to seek the compensation for damages caused by the Defendant’s tort.”
'The Court clearly made it clear'.
A person shall be appointed.
A. The portion added to the end of the fourth 11th judgment of the court of first instance is also a case where either party to a contract directly provides payment to a third party who has been under a different contractual relationship with the other party by reducing the process of payment upon the other party’s instruction (in this case, where payment has been made in the so-called triar relationship), not only the other party to the contract who provided payment, but also the other party provided payment to a third party. As such, a party to a contract cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against a third party on the ground that he/she received payment without any legal cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da20492, Jul. 12, 2018). Accordingly, even if a quid pro quo relationship between the other party to the contract (in this case, the other party to the contract) and a third party (in this case, the other party to the contract can only seek return of unjust enrichment to the third party (the other party to the contract).