부당이득금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around February 27, 2013, engaged in the auction business of corporeal movables, etc., and the Plaintiff delivered KRW 10 million to the Defendant under the name of the partner, such as the expenses, does not conflict between the parties. According to the purport of the statement and the entire pleadings as to Gap’s evidence No. 1, the Defendant, upon receipt of KRW 10,000,000 from the Gwangju District Court on January 14, 2016, issued and kept KRW 2,00,000 for personal consumption and embezzlement of KRW 10,000,000 for personal use as seen above, was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000,000,000 for the criminal facts that were kept for personal use, and the said judgment becomes final and conclusive on November 3, 2016 through the appellate court (Seoul District Court Decision 2016No218), the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do13975).
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant acquired the above 4.85 million won without any legal ground and thereby caused damage to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff unjust enrichment amounting to 4.85 million won as unjust enrichment and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from November 6, 2018 to May 15, 2019, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance, and from the next day to the date of full payment.
The plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the date on which the plaintiff delivered KRW 10 million to the defendant, but since the obligation to return unjust enrichment constitutes a debt for which the deadline has not been set, the damages for delay shall accrue from the day following the plaintiff's peremptory notice of payment to the defendant.
The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, and even if the defendant was found guilty as a result of the investigation and trial against the defendant, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff notified the defendant to perform otherwise before the plaintiff notified the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case.