부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, who was the head of overseas plant headquarters at the time of receiving a contract for DNA construction works ordered by the company C, requested the plaintiff to purchase part of the above construction work as rebates, and the plaintiff promised to pay 450,000,000 won as rebates instead of the subcontract owner. On June 25, 2008, the plaintiff paid 1 of the machinery installation works (hereinafter "construction works of this case") among the above refining construction works with E Co., Ltd. at USD 15,50,00 as construction cost US dollars, and then paid 314,00,00,000 won as rebates between January 11, 2008 and July 31, 2009 to the plaintiff (=the total amount of KRW 30,00,000,000,000 from July 31, 2009, the construction works of this case had not been discontinued to the extent of 15.8%, and thus, the defendant claimed that the remaining amount of rebates amount of KRW 3046,36364,54646.
In addition, the plaintiff does not recognize the defendant's obligation to return unjust enrichment.
Even if the E Co., Ltd. was awarded a contract for D refining construction and had the Defendant accept the instant construction work even though it was not capable of properly executing it, the E Co., Ltd. asserts that the Defendant should pay the above amount to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages, since it acquired the money in the name of rebates.
2. First of all, the judgment is not sufficient to acknowledge only the entries of the Plaintiff 1 and No. 10 (including each number), whether the Defendant received money from the Plaintiff as the name of rebates in relation to the subcontract agreement of the instant construction project, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit without further review.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.