beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.01.12 2014가단207739

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff received a subcontract for D Corporation (hereinafter “D Corporation”) under the name of the Songwon Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and the Defendant, which operates the “E”, supplied the Plaintiff with miscellaneous materials, such as steel, in relation to D Corporation.

B. In addition, the Defendant supplied materials to the Furra Construction Site (hereinafter “F”) that the Plaintiff performed, the Maurel Construction Corporation (hereinafter “G”), the Haurel Construction Corporation (hereinafter “H”), and the I Hospital Construction Corporation (hereinafter “I Corporation”).

C. On October 31, 2012, the strong name paid KRW 22,316,685 to the Defendant. D.

The Defendant (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) filed an application for provisional seizure against claim with the Busan District Court Decision 201Kadan13441, May 27, 2012, 2012 (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) with respect to “The claim for the price of goods from May 27, 2012 to October 30, 2012.”

E. On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 22,381,860 to the Defendant, and the Defendant received money from the Plaintiff and applied for the rescission of the execution of the provisional seizure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, 18, Eul evidence 7 through 9, 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The defendant asserts that even though he received KRW 22,316,685 in relation to D construction work from the strong order from the plaintiff, he deceivings the plaintiff and received KRW 22,381,860 in return for the replacement of the goods. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment 22,831,860 in return for unjust enrichment and delay damages to the plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the money that the Defendant received from the strong name was paid to the strong name for the goods supplied to the strong name for direct trade in connection with the D Construction, and it is not related to the Plaintiff’s construction, but also domestic affairs.