부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant would have the plaintiff selected as the removal company of the housing redevelopment improvement project in the Dong-si Northern District in the Dong-si. The defendant's assertion that it would have the plaintiff selected the plaintiff as the removal company of the housing redevelopment improvement project in the Dong-si Northern District in this case is obligated to return the above fraud money to the plaintiff, since it did not have any intent or ability to allow the plaintiff to select as the removal company. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23290, Oct. 25, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 23574, Mar. 17, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 23579, Aug. 2, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 2420, Dec. 27, 2013; Presidential Decree No. 24200,
2. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 70 million, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in terms of the consideration for solicitation and arrangement for the executives of the Housing Redevelopment Project Association in the North Korean New District, while having the Plaintiff and A select as the removal company of the Housing Redevelopment Association in the North Korean District, through Tong-si.
However, even according to the above evidence, it can be known that the defendant was punished only for the crime that the defendant received money as a solicitation or intermediary (violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act) and that the above money was not punished for fraud, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant acquired the above money without the intention or ability to make the defendant selected as the removed company.
Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim on a different premise.
[Defendant asserts that money may not be returned because the judgment of criminal case became final and conclusive and the penalty was collected up to 70 million won. Since Article 746 of the Civil Act provides that "the main text of the payment for illegal cause shall not demand the return of profits when he pays property or provides labor due to illegal cause." Thus, even if it can be recognized that the defendant had no intention or ability to select the removal company as the removal company, delivery of KRW 70 million to the defendant as the price for solicitation and mediation for the selection of the removal company is paid for illegal cause.