beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.12.22 2016가단505260

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 14,947,50 to the Plaintiffs, as well as the period from March 11, 2016 to December 22, 2016.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiffs jointly engage in a high-water screening business in the trade name of “E”, and the Defendants jointly engage in a construction waste collection and transportation business, etc. in the trade name of “F”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 4, and the purport of the entire argument by the parties, the Defendants purchased from the Plaintiffs the aggregate amount of KRW 3,590,00 (=71,180km x 500 won) of the market value of Hn beam 71,180km (hereinafter “instant Hn beam”) owned by the Plaintiffs, and thus, are liable to pay the purchase price.

Even without doing so, the Defendants were liable for return of unjust enrichment since they infringed the beam beam of this case, and they were liable for damages due to nonperformance of the duty to return the H beam of this case, the Plaintiff owned.

The defendants, although they knew of the fact that they were guilty of fraud with the plaintiffs and their names, they received and disposed of the h beam beam of this case from the plaintiffs, and acquired the h beam of this case in collusion with their names with the h beam of this case, they are liable for damages caused by tort.

The Defendants received the instant H beamline from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) to sell 180 won per kg, and acquired ownership by acquiring the instant H beamline as G informed. The Defendants did not either purchase the H beam beam from the Plaintiffs or make unjust enrichment.

Since the defendant made a confirmation phone call to G until the day of acceptance and asked the police, there is no intention or negligence on the plaintiffs' fraud in G.

On May 2015, the Plaintiffs received the communication stating that “The Plaintiffs would send the instant H beamline to 500 won per kg,” from the nameless winners who misrepresented to G in the middle of 2015 (at the same time, the identity of the Defendant appears to have been introduced to H as “H,” but the authenticity of the name cannot be revealed.”

The Defendants, around that time, have the beamline kg from a name-free person.