(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.07.22 2015나1301 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.07.22 2015나1301

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserts that the actual owner of the vehicle is the owner of the vehicle, and that the plaintiff would sell the vehicle, and confirmed the vehicle in cooperation with the defendant, who is the owner of the vehicle, and then remitted the amount of KRW 14.5 million to the account in the name of C requested by the non-resident in order to pay the vehicle price to the non-resident. However, the plaintiff asserts that the non-resident was deceiving the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 14.5 million to the plaintiff.

However, according to the facts without dispute and the purport of the whole oral argument, the defendant can also know the fact that the defendant was the victim who was unaware of the person who was unaware of his/her intention to purchase the vehicle, and the person who was unaware of his/her name was the direct cause for deceiving the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 14.5 million as above, and it is difficult to view that there was a proximate causal relation between the defendant's father's care and the plaintiff'

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is a party to a sales contract with the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant is liable for damages arising from the fault in concluding the contract, breach of the principle of trust and good faith, or incomplete performance.

However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion itself, the plaintiff was proposed to sell and purchase the vehicle from the person who is not the actual borrower, and transferred 14,50,000 won to the account in the name of C with the intention to pay the vehicle to the person who is not the person who is not the actual borrower after consultation with his name and the price of the vehicle. Thus, it is reasonable to see that the party who entered into the contract with the plaintiff is the person who is not the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.10.10 2019나1135

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.07.09 2014가단26761

-대전지방법원공주지원 2014.07.24 2014가단20034

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2014.11.11 2014나489

-대전지방법원 2015.04.14 2014나104665