부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant C is the actual owner of Limited Company D (mutual E after the alteration; hereinafter “D”), and Defendant B is the employee of D due to Defendant C’s denial. On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with Defendant C to transfer all of the employee rights, including Defendant B’s employee rights, to KRW 10 million (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of employee rights”), and paid all of the transfer proceeds, and paid KRW 14,781,450 of D’s value-added tax on a deposit basis, and paid KRW 2 million as the guarantee price.
However, the Defendants did not implement the procedures for transferring the rights of employees of D to the Plaintiff, and rather actively refused the implementation of the procedures for transferring the rights of employees by filing an application for the provisional disposition of suspending the performance of duties against the Plaintiff, etc. and filing a lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of the written resolution with the Plaintiff.
The Defendants’ attitude constitutes an expression of intent to rescind the agreement on the transfer of employee rights of this case. Even if not, the Plaintiff rescinds the agreement on the transfer of employee rights of this case by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case on the grounds of the Defendants’ nonperformance of obligations as above. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to refund the Plaintiff the payment amount of KRW 24,781,450 (the payment amount of KRW 14,781,450 (the payment amount of KRW 14,781,450) and the delayed payment amount of KRW 14,781,450 (the payment of KRW 2,00,000)
2. We examine the judgment on the claim against the defendant B, and even based on the plaintiff's assertion itself, the contract of transferring membership rights of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant C. Thus, even if the contract of transferring membership rights of this case was cancelled as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant B, not the party to the contract, bears the duty of restoration according to the termination of the contract.