부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap 1-1-1-3 and 2, the plaintiff is an artificial fishery business operator, and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "foreign company") is a company established on January 7, 1998 and was dissolved on December 2, 2013. The plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 70 million to the non-party company's account, ② KRW 30 million on December 19, 2005, ② KRW 20 million on December 19, 2005, ③ KRW 20 million on January 7, 2006, and KRW 70 million on March 18, 2008, to the non-party company's auditor on March 18, 2008, and the defendant C assumed office on May 20, 2005.
Plaintiff’s assertion
The plaintiff filed a claim for damages based on the tort and the judgment that the defendants received 70 million won from the non-party company's account and received the above money from the non-party company. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant received 70 million won from the non-party company's account and received 70 million won from the non-party company's account, while the defendant did not have the intent or ability to place an order for the interior work, if the plaintiff paid 70 million won to the non-party with the brokerage fee for the construction work.
Therefore, it is only recognized that the Defendants were subject to a disposition of suspicion on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the deception by deceiving the Plaintiff and deceiving the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000, and rather, according to each of the statements in B-1 and B-2, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants under the above fraud charges, but on July 7, 2011, the Defendants were actually paid to the Defendant on the side of the Pcarflus theater and Lbawa, for the reason that “the part of the above KRW 70,00,000 was actually paid as a security deposit.”
The plaintiff also paid 70 million won to the non-party company as the brokerage fee for the contract. The plaintiff actually paid the construction work.