부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as follows: “Defendant” in the 6th judgment of the court of first instance was used as “Defendant (Defendant L&C Co., Ltd. changed its trade name to Defendant on April 29, 2016; hereinafter “Defendant”)”; additionally submitted evidence in the trial, the Defendant entered into the purchase contract of this case at a price higher than the actual transaction by public offering or accepting the act of occupational breach of trust of C, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount as the Plaintiff by obtaining the benefit of the difference without any legal cause.
(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff entered into the instant purchase contract by mistake is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the witness D and E’s testimony is rejected, and the Plaintiff’s assertion at the trial by filing an appeal is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for addition of the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph (2). As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as joint tortfeasor, and the Defendant concluded the instant purchase contract at a price higher than the actual market price by inviting or taking advantage of C’s conspiracy of occupational breach of trust, and caused damages equivalent to the difference to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 56,80,000 as joint tortfeasor and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) The circumstance or evidence of the Plaintiff’s internal tax credit alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant concluded the instant purchase contract in collusion with C at a price higher than the actual market price, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. 2) In addition, in order to impose liability for joint tort as a tort against another person’s tort, proximate causal relation between aiding and abetting act and the occurrence of damages by the victim is recognized.