부당이득금반환 청구
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The facts of the summary of the case – The Plaintiff supplied the instant steel bars to A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant steel bars”) on February 17, 2016, with the supply and use of “the instant steel bars,” 39,711km (HD 16mm 16mHHD 13m 20,055mm 20,055mm hereinafter referred to as “instant steel bars”); the Defendant subcontracted to A on January 20, 2015, the instant steel bars subcontracted the instant steel bars built for the instant construction site (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”), and the fact that the instant steel bars used in the instant construction site (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”) is not disputed between the parties, or recognized through the evidence Nos. 4 and No. 1 of evidence No. 1 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).
Plaintiff’s assertion
The plaintiff selectively filed a claim against the defendant for the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the price of the steel bars of this case or a claim for damages based on a tort as follows.
[Inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not explicitly change the cause of the claim, it shall be determined by selecting a claim for return of unjust enrichment or a claim for damages based on the same premise. The Plaintiff intended to supply the instant steel bars to the new construction site, which is another construction site, A, but mistakenly supplied it to the instant site by mistake.
Therefore, since the defendant obtained the above reinforcing without any legal ground, he must return the benefits to the plaintiff.
The defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the total amount of the contract, since he/she had the duty of care to recognize and prevent the deception of A, while he/she knows that A is not able to pay the contract price for the contract, by deceiving the plaintiff together with the above company, and neglecting this duty of care.
Judgment
First of all, the validity of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment in this case is examined, and evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 7 supporting this part of the claim is proved as evidence.