beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.29 2016나6682

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including a serial number), there is no dispute between the parties to the basic facts, or comprehensively taking into account the purport of the whole arguments, the following facts are as follows: ① the plaintiff and the defendant, the attorney-at-law, entered into a delegation contract with respect to legal affairs that can enable the plaintiff's business without being interfered with the seizure of a third party in the future (hereinafter "the delegation contract of this case") on January 2015; ② according to the delegation contract of this case, the plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the defendant in return for the above handling of affairs; ② according to the delegation contract of this case, the plaintiff shall be paid KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant; ③ the plaintiff paid the defendant a total sum of KRW 22,00,000 (including value-added tax 2,00,000) to the defendant; ③ the defendant's decision against the plaintiff's legal representative is recognized as the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 215151,15

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with the defendant to handle legal affairs arising from the plaintiff's obligation relations, and paid 22,00,000,000 won including value-added tax of 2,00,000 won to the defendant.

However, given that the Defendant failed to perform its duty under the delegation contract, such as making the business delegated by the Plaintiff unfaithfully or losing the relevant lawsuit, the Defendant sought the return of KRW 17,000,000, out of KRW 22,000 paid by the Plaintiff.

3. First of all, with regard to the Plaintiff’s nature of the claim for return of money, the Plaintiff uses the term of unjust enrichment, but considering the entire purport of the claim, the Plaintiff claims for damages due to nonperformance of delegation contract.