beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.11.28 2015가단211538

불법행위 등 손해배상 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts without dispute;

A. The Plaintiff is a school foundation established for the purpose of establishing and operating educational facilities, such as C University. The Defendant was a professor with the electronic automated department from C University affiliated with the Plaintiff, and the principal of D High School from September 1, 2009 to February 29, 2012.

B. The Defendant was commissioned as C University advisory members on September 1, 2009, and was paid 35 million won in total from C University school accounts at C University over 14 occasions between October 1, 2009 and October 27, 2010, as advisory fees.

C. The Defendant was also commissioned as the Plaintiff’s advisory member on November 1, 2010, and was paid 37,500,000 won in total from the Plaintiff’s account to January 30, 2012 on 15 occasions between November 30, 2010 and January 30, 2012.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. E, the president of the Plaintiff, in collusion with the F and G working for the president of Cuniversity, appointed the Defendant who does not give any advice as a consultant of Cuniversity and the Plaintiff, and paid advisory allowances as above, thereby allowing the Defendant to gain a total of KRW 72.5 million (=35 million + KRW 37.5 million + KRW 37.5 million) and causing losses to the Plaintiff.

B. Therefore, the defendant, as a joint tortfeasor or a person who has acquired the above money without any legal ground, has the obligation to compensate or return the above KRW 72.5 million to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff was paid KRW 72,50,000 as advisory fees by the Defendant who participated in the Plaintiff’s act of occupational breach of trust.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the above money was unjust enrichment without any cause, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Rather, according to the evidence No. 16 evidence No. 16, E, F and G (F and G are E’s Chokac; hereinafter “E, etc.”) are occupational breach of trust with respect to the portion of payment of advisory fees of KRW 72.5 million to the Defendant.