손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business of credit card terminals, and the Defendant was an employee of the Berne Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EL Plus”) who was an agent of EL Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EL Plus”).
B. On March 9, 2012, the Plaintiff’s representative director C agreed to use the communications services, including ELS and Internet and telephone (hereinafter “instant communications services”).
On April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff, respectively, remitted the fee of KRW 418,00 and the telephone amount of KRW 242,00 to the Berne Director Co., Ltd.
C. From April 30, 2012 to June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,031,546 in the sum of the instant telecommunications service charges to EL Plus.
On March 2013, the Plaintiff requested to transfer the instant telecommunications service to a new address by having a business office transferred to a Vietnam War Co., Ltd., but the Plaintiff was unable to use telephone during the period required for the transfer of the service, and the instant telecommunications service contract was terminated.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2, Gap 3's evidence 1 to 13, Eul 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Eul evidence 8-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, received KRW 390,00 per month from April 151, 2012, from May 2012 to April 2013, 2012, under the name of the representative telephone usage fee, among the instant telecommunications service charges, KRW 4,831,936 (=151,936 won x 396 won) and its delay damages are liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 4,831,936 (=151,936 won) and its delay damages.
B. The determination system imposes an obligation to return unjust enrichment on the benefiting party based on the ideology of fairness and justice in a case where the benefiting of the benefiting party did not have any legal cause.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, Sept. 8, 2011). However, according to the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s EL Plus and the instant case.