부당이득금 반환
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
1. Determination of the judgment subject to a retrial and the following facts in the process of litigation are apparent or obvious to this court.
The plaintiff is a person who has worked as an administrative office at C elementary school located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu from February 1, 2008 to March 31, 201.
From December 2, 2009 to January 201, 2010, the C Elementary School paid KRW 20,000,00 as the construction price to the public corporation. The Defendant: (a) conducted an audit on this on April 2010; (b) discovered that the public corporation failed to perform the construction works or performed the construction by mistake; and (c) the principal and the Plaintiff did not confirm it properly; and (d) paid the construction price exceeding KRW 6,979,50 in excess of the actual construction cost, thereby causing damage equivalent to the amount of the said school; and (b) ordered the principal and the Plaintiff to jointly pay the said amount as compensation to the school accounting.
On September 7, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,489,750, half of the above amount to C Elementary Schools.
B. After that, on April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking unjust enrichment against the Defendant on the ground that, unlike the Defendant’s audit result, the Plaintiff actually required an amount equivalent to KRW 23,051,250 for the said interior work, and that the construction cost was not paid in excess of the construction cost, the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to make an erroneous compensation, thereby having the Plaintiff paid indemnity, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment of KRW 3,489,750 with the Ulsan District Court 2015Da12546. The first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on July 15, 2015.
As to this, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ulsan District Court 2015Na21943. On November 19, 2015, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the grounds that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion (hereinafter “the judgment on review”), and the original copy of the said judgment was served on the Plaintiff on November 24, 2015.
(c) to this;