부당이득금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for the submission or addition of the following paragraphs 2, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts used or added;
(a)Nos. 11 through 13 of the judgment of the first instance court are as follows:
“C. The Plaintiff set off KRW 34,025,461 of the instant fee refund claims against the Defendant that the Plaintiff should pay to the Defendant, thereby remaining KRW 86,984,888.”
(b)as of the 2nd sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added:
D. On June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff’s insurer, paid KRW 65,00,000 insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff on June 22, 2018, which was pending the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff appropriated the amount for the remaining principal and interest, out of the refund claims of the instant fee, and as of June 22, 2018, the principal amount of KRW 40,501,944 (hereinafter “instant restitution fees”).
(ii) has become South Korea;
(c)Paragraph 14 of the second decision of the first instance is followed.
[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]
(d)the second page 15 to the last sentence of the first instance court are followed:
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the restitution fee of this case, the amount of KRW 40,501,944, and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.
A person shall be appointed.
(e)on Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “86,984,888” shall be deemed to read “the amount claimed by the Plaintiff”;
F. On the 4th judgment of the first instance court, “In addition, the instant claim is only a claim for return of unjust enrichment seeking the payment of the restitution fee stipulated in the allowance provision, and it is not a claim for damages, and the Defendant’s assertion of violation of the good faith principle is without merit, even in this respect.”
(2).