beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.16 2016가단5246650

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) Plaintiff A’s assertion (as to Defendant 1, 2, and 3), Defendant D, as the representative of Defendant E and F during March 2015, sent back to and from the Non-Party J, who represented the Plaintiff as the representative of Defendant E and F, for a period of at least 12,50,000 won per month, for a period of at least 12,50,000 won per month, after shipping back to and from 12 times every month the following day to a fixed line of at least 3 to 4:0,000 U.S. 8-9: Provided, That on March 30, 2015, Plaintiff A entered into an “contract for underwriting, etc.” with Defendant E, but was assigned from Defendant F after entering into an “contract for underwriting, etc.” as to the same item, but did not guarantee the aforementioned fixed route and sales (hereinafter “job conditions”).

Items (K) 125,00,000 13,000,000,000 2,000,0000,000 175,000,000 175,000,000 out of the acquisition money of the above vehicle, etc. (c) while Defendant D, even though it is well aware that it is not capable of guaranteeing the job conditions to Plaintiff A, who is the owner of land, would dispose of the above vehicle as soon as possible, and would enable Plaintiff A to enter into an acquisition contract for the above vehicle, etc., for the purpose of acquiring the remaining amount after excluding the price of the vehicle. Accordingly, Plaintiff A, by deceiving Plaintiff A to enter into an acquisition contract for the above vehicle, etc., and further, Defendant EF to cancel the acquisition contract for the above vehicle, etc. as part of the acquisition contract for the above vehicle, etc., and notified Plaintiff EF and EF to Plaintiff A of the cancellation of the contract for the above acquisition contract.

As a result, Defendant D as well as Defendant E and F did not have any reason to receive premium of KRW 35 million from the Plaintiff based on an underwriting agreement for the above vehicle, etc., and thus, Plaintiff A was not entitled to receive the premium of KRW 35 million.