부당이득금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Soyang-si CA Dong 135 is owned by Defendant A, and 136 is owned by Defendant B.
B. On May 6, 2007, the Plaintiff leased the above Nos. 135, 136 from Defendant A, and 24 months from Defendant B, respectively, with each of the deposit of KRW 60 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.8 million, and each of the period of 24 months. On May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with each of the deposit of KRW 70 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.2 million, and each of the period of 24 months, respectively. In this case, the Plaintiff drafted a charter contract with each of the deposit of KRW 60 million and KRW 2.8 million, respectively.
C. On May 6, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with each of the deposit amounting to KRW 80 million and KRW 3.7 million each of the monthly rents, and drafted a transport agreement with each of the monthly rents at KRW 3.5 million.
The Defendants reported and paid the rental income under the above lease contract to the competent tax office based on the above lease contract.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number)
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transferred the right of lease under the aforementioned lease agreement from May 6, 201 to JS Telecom. The Defendants forced the Plaintiff to refuse to permit the transfer of the right of lease without giving notice of KRW 45,00,000, out of the key money received by the Plaintiff, and thereby are obligated to return it as unjust enrichment. The Defendants filed a tax return in accordance with the Multilater agreement from May 2009 to March 2013, thereby making profits accrued from non-data-free data each. The Plaintiff did not dispose of the amount equivalent to the above amount as deductible expenses and incurred losses by the representative director by disposing of it as the payment, and thus, they are obligated to return it as unjust enrichment.
B. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is the JS Telecom on January 23, 2013.