부당이득금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with KRW 20 million.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited as it is by the main text
The 11th to 16th of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.
(C) In conclusion, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff as a malicious beneficiary of unjust enrichment of KRW 20 million and the Defendant as a malicious beneficiary on February 2, 2017 (Article 748(2) of the Civil Act) (i.e., the Plaintiff’s malicious beneficiary shall return interest to the Plaintiff (Article 748(2) of the Civil Act). The term “malicious” refers to recognizing that his/her own interest has no legal ground and having no legal ground for holding the interest. In short, it is insufficient to recognize that there is a fact that falls under the requirements for establishing the obligation to return unjust enrichment.
(2) As to the Plaintiff’s transfer and acquisition contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da24187, 24194, Jan. 28, 2010). Even if the Defendant knew that there was no special resolution of the Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders at the time of the conclusion of the transfer and acquisition contract, such circumstance alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was aware of the existence of any legal ground for holding the survey business of this case. It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, from February 2, 2017, knew that the transfer and acquisition contract of this case against the Defendant was null and void without a special resolution of the Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders.
The Plaintiff’s interest or damages for delay claimed in excess of the above part shall not be accepted.
From June 14, 2019 to June 14, 2019, the date of the final judgment of the court, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation, 5% per annum under the Civil Code, as requested by the plaintiff.