부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange after the remand is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff is the defendant.
1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows, except where the “F” of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed as E” under the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. G, the representative director of the Plaintiff’s assertion, in collusion with C, obtained a total of KRW 165,616,000 from the Plaintiff through the instant processing transaction.
Even if G did not conspired to commit fraud, it was easy to assist C in committing the crime by intention or negligence by issuing a false tax invoice even though G knew or could have known the illegal transfer of funds through the instant processing transaction.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 35 of the Civil Act, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the price of the goods paid in advance as compensation for damages, and the compensation for delay.
3. Determination
A. In the case of a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act, several persons jointly inflict damages on another person, as well as conspiracy among actors, it does not require a joint perception. However, if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint tort, it is sufficient if the joint tort occurred, and as a result of the joint act related to the joint tort, the joint tort is established. Aiding and abetting in a joint tort refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the tort. Aiding and abetting in a joint tort refers to all acts that facilitate the tort, and it is possible to assist by negligence as an interpretation of the Civil Act that considers the negligence as a matter of principle for the purpose of compensating for damages, unlike the Criminal Act. In this case, the content of the negligence refers to a violation of this duty on the premise that there is a duty of care
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da80026 Decided February 11, 2010, etc.). B.
Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul 1.