부당이득금
1. From July 2, 2014 to December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 728,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff posted one of the instant bags among the manufactured goods of the bags on the Internet (hereinafter “instant bags”) on a medium-sized goods transaction site.
B. In this article, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff about whether the instant bags are authentic or not, and the Plaintiff made a sales statement to the effect that the instant bags are authentic or not, and that the Plaintiff would compensate for 200% of the emotionals.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant discussed the instant bank transaction through letters, etc., and agreed to make a transaction through the safety settlement site (Nekro).
Accordingly, on June 25, 2014, the Defendant settled KRW 728,000,000, including the sales price of KRW 700,000,000 at the payment site, and the Plaintiff delivered the instant bank to the Defendant on July 1, 2014.
E. However, the instant bags, not as well as authentic goods, are identified as the so-called “representative” or “representative of a trademark,” and upon the Defendant’s accusation, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 300,000 as a fine for attempted fraud on November 24, 2014.
F. Meanwhile, 70,000 won paid as above was suspended at the Defendant’s request and was remitted to the Plaintiff. Since then, the Plaintiff returned this to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s legal representative delivered the instant bank to the Plaintiff on the date of the first pleading.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, Eul 1, 3, 4, 8-1 to 8-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As to the claim of this case, the plaintiff sought a reasonable amount, consolation money, and damages for delay if the return of the provisional claim of this case is not made against the defendant and the provisional return is not made. Thus, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the defendant's legal representative delivered the provisional claim of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case needs not be examined further.