부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment for ten months with labor for fraud in the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court (2017 Godan1022). The facts constituting the crime are as follows.
On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that “I will pay the principal and profits when I lend money necessary for a real estate contract to the Defendant by using a mobile phone from D real estate located in Seocho-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan.”
However, even if the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant, it did not intend to use it for the Plaintiff’s debt repayment, but did not have any intent to use it. At the time, the Plaintiff did not have the ability to repay the debt equivalent to KRW 130 million to the Defendant.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff, as seen above, deceiving the Defendant, and he received KRW 18 million from the Defendant to the E bank account in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day, and acquired it by deceiving KRW 138 million through eight times from February 15, 2016 to June 7, 2016. < Amended by Act No. 13806, Feb. 15, 2016>
B. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to fully repay the amount of KRW 138 million, which was paid by the Plaintiff, out of the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 from the money obtained through deception of the above criminal case, as damages for tort by this court No. 2016Ga973, the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff for the dismissal of the Defendant’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff had the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 163,150,000 against the Defendant, but the above court held the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment of KRW 160,000,000 against the Defendant on January 24, 2018.
Even if the defendant's damage claim against the plaintiff is due to intentional tort, the plaintiff is above.