부당이득금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The judgment of the court of first instance is rendered on January 1, 201.
1. Basic facts - The Plaintiff is a person who is engaged in the business of attracting Internet subscription customers and receiving customer data from a third party (C, D, and E) by means of communication, and receiving fees from the said third party.
- Around November 27, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract under which the Defendant invited the Internet subscriber and received fees from the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff would pay the fees to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).
- According to the contract of this case, when the Internet subscriber who was detained by the defendant terminates the Internet within the period under the provisions of each communication agency, the defendant shall refund the fee to the plaintiff.
In addition, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the reason attributable to the defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7 evidence, purport of the whole argument
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the evidence Nos. 9 and 34 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, as the Internet subscriber detained by the Defendant terminates within a certain period, the Plaintiff’s total sum of the money recovered from the three communications companies and the money entered in the treatment of civil petitions can be acknowledged as constituting 2,858,350.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,858,350 won and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 25, 2016 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.
B. Determination of the Defendant’s assertion (1) The Defendant’s assertion did not give prior notice to the Defendant that the cause for redemption occurred due to the termination of the customer’s termination.
It is not faithful to the plaintiff's work.
(2) No provision can be found to the effect that the Plaintiff, under the instant contract, can receive a refund of the fee from the Defendant to notify in advance of the occurrence of the cause for restitution.
There is no reason to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s prior duty of disclosure, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is accepted.