부당이득금
Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and such revocation shall be revoked.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract for the removal of 15th floor buildings in C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and Sinsisisisisisisi (re construction of a new building) with the Defendant’s introduction, and paid KRW 15 million as the introduction fee to the Defendant.
In this regard, the above buildings were provisionally seized and seized by creditors of the previous events, and even in C, they were unable to carry out the removal construction because they were not prepared for the receipt of documents about the additional construction.
The defendant is well aware of the above facts and, as such, to enter into a contract for removal works by deceiving the plaintiff as if the removal works are possible within the short period, and in return, to receive KRW 15 million.
The Plaintiff terminated the removal construction contract with C and received KRW 5 million from C (A).
Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the remainder of the introduction fee of KRW 10 million and the delayed damages.
B. Determination 1) According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the whole arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged:
A) On August 1, 2018, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) entered into a contract for the removal work of building D located in Sincho-si with the Defendant’s introduction on August 1, 2018 (hereinafter “instant removal work contract”). (B) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff appears to be the spouse of K, the representative director of E.
The Defendant, under the pretext of introduction regarding the conclusion of the instant removal construction contract, remitted the Defendant’s spouse’s F account to the Defendant’s F account on August 1, 2018 and KRW 15 million on August 2, 2018.
C) On August 2, 2018, the Defendant remitted KRW 1 million to G among the above KRW 15 million, KRW 3 million to H, KRW 3 million to I (through the J’s account), and KRW 5 million to C, respectively.
D) After that, the Plaintiff becomes aware that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to proceed with the removal work due to the seizure, etc. of existing creditors on the building.