logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가합53127
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 200 million to the Defendant with the intention of lending money. Since the Defendant was unaware of such intent of the Plaintiff, it was unable to conclude any contract due to the failure to reach an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, as in the case of remitting money by mistake, the Defendant gains profits by receiving KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and the Plaintiff incurred the same amount of damages, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. (ii) The Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to C at the design service cost in accordance with the design service contract between the Defendant and C.

However, there is no contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, so the Defendant, without any legal ground, obtained the profit of extinguishing the obligation equivalent to KRW 40 million due to the payment of the said money by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 40 million to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant sold the land to D and received the purchase price from D, and D had the money that the Plaintiff agreed to receive from the Plaintiff’s husband E, and the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the money that the Plaintiff would have to pay to the Plaintiff’s husband E. Therefore, since the Defendant received KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff as the purchase price of the land was paid, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant received money without any legal ground. (ii) D or F lent money to the Plaintiff to pay the design service cost in accordance with the said design service contract. Accordingly, F was transferred from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff and paid it as the design service cost.

Therefore, the above KRW 40 million is only a loan made by the Plaintiff to D or F, and it cannot be said that the Defendant obtained a benefit without any legal ground.

2. Whether the obligation to return unjust enrichment arises;

(a) 20 million won;

arrow