부당이득금
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim extended in the trial of the court.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the counterclaim extended in the court of first instance, and the reasoning of the court's judgment is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the counterclaim claim expanded by the trial court
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s representative director: (a) imported plastic withdrawal equipment irrelevant to the object of the instant agency contract; (b) by pretending that the distribution cost was part of the purchase cost and distribution cost of the instant machinery; and (c) deceiving the Defendant; and (d) obtained KRW 13,525,349, which is equivalent to the distribution cost of the said plastic withdrawal equipment from the Defendant, from the Defendant; and (b) obtained the said money from the Defendant; and accordingly, (c) obtained the profit of KRW 13,525,349, which is equivalent to the distribution cost of the said plastic withdrawal equipment; and (d) caused considerable damage to the Defendant, the said amount should be returned to the Defendant as unjust enrichment.
3) On a selective basis, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages incurred by the Defendant due to the above tort committed by the Plaintiff’s representative director, which is equivalent to the distribution cost of the aforementioned plastic withdrawal machine, KRW 13,525,349. B. 1) First, the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is deemed to have been
A) Since res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment affects the judgment on the existence of legal relations asserted as a subject matter of a lawsuit, the same party’s filing of a subsequent suit on the same subject matter of a lawsuit as that of the previous suit cannot be permitted as it conflicts with res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment in the previous suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da49981, Mar. 27, 2014). According to each of the statements in the evidence No. 3-5, No. 3-5 of the evidence No. 3-5, the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff for the return of unjust enrichment (hereinafter “the instant withdrawal”).