부당이득반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, was paid KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff on August 7, 2013, by stating that “A dump truck owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant truck”) operates the instant truck, the transport charges of KRW 750,00 per day. However, in order for the Plaintiff to operate the instant truck, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff as the introduction charges around August 7, 2013.”
However, as a result of the Plaintiff’s investigation, even if operating the instant truck, it was impossible to impose a transportation fee of KRW 7,50,000 per day, and rather, there was an occurrence of deficit monthly, and the Defendant did not use KRW 2,00,000 received from the Plaintiff as a transportation fee.
As such, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant is obligated to pay 2 million won and damages for delay due to the return of unjust enrichment or tort by deceiving the plaintiff and by deceiving the plaintiff from the plaintiff.
B. The defendant did not receive the above KRW 2 million from the plaintiff under the pretext of the job placement fee.
In order to sell the instant truck to the Plaintiff, the Defendant received a total of KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff, such as the notarial expenses related to the instant truck’s business, the course guidance expenses, expenses, etc. to inform the Plaintiff of the instant truck business. Therefore, the Defendant did not defraud the Plaintiff with the above KRW 2 million.
2. The following circumstances are acknowledged by the overall purport of the statement and pleading in the evidence No. 1 (including the serial number) and the defendant's deception as to whether the defendant deceivings the plaintiff by means of deception as alleged by the plaintiff as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim, namely, ① although the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in a fraudulent manner, the defendant was subject to a disposition of suspicion (defluence of evidence) by 2013No. 865 at the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office on March 25, 2014; ② the plaintiff filed a second complaint against the defendant in a fraudulent manner, but the defendant filed a second complaint against the defendant on March 24, 2017.