부당이득금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the instant case, is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The fourth 20 to fifth 9 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall have been completed in the following manner:
B) Furthermore, regarding (i) the amount to be deducted from the deposit of this case, evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 8, 14, 20, 22, 25, 26 of this case (if any, the number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply)
In light of the overall purport of the pleading, the Defendant is recognized as having suffered property damage of KRW 22,147,080 due to the mistake committed by the Defendant in connection with the performance of the duties under the instant contract.In the end, the Defendant’s amount to be paid for the Defendant’s term compensation amount B concluded a performance guarantee insurance contract in the name of the customer on R while opening the cell phone by stealing using the name of the victim K, L, and M. The Defendant paid for the cell phone price and the charges of the cell phone in the name of the customer. After R paid for the cell phone price and charges of the above K, etc., which were unpaid to D, the Defendant filed an objection against the use of the name, and the said K, etc. filed an objection against the use of the name, or filed an objection against D, etc. within 10 years from the opening of the fraudulent name theft, the Defendant shall receive, revoke, and refund the same to D, and have the Defendant reimburse the same to D.
The plaintiff asserts that the amount to be paid by the victim B paid the fees of O, P, and Q.
However, since the O's data on the payment of fees were not submitted, the plaintiff's assertion on this is without merit without further review.
In addition, the plaintiff paid P and Q's charges.