(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.17 2017재나120

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) 대구지방법원 2018.01.17 2017재나120

부당이득금

Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

Reasons

1. The following facts, which have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records in this court:

On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted against the Defendant as follows and filed a lawsuit claiming 36,445,107 won and damages for delay.

around 2008, the Plaintiff, C, Defendant, and D agreed to acquire a construction company through joint investment, and around January 21, 2009, E Co., Ltd. (F was changed to F; hereinafter “F”).

However, the defendant paid 108,000,000 won out of 150,000,000 won which the plaintiff remitted to the defendant's passbook with acceptance fund and embezzled 42,00,000 won.

In addition, the F receives earth and sand from H companies and received it from H companies to J to treat the remaining soil among them, and after the J leaves the work due to its problem, K had K dispose of the remaining soil upon D's recommendation.

However, the defendant and D made intimidation to the plaintiff, and caused the plaintiff to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 80,198,300 regardless of the construction work.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,445,107 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share in the same business among KRW 122,198,30, the sum of the amount remitted to the Plaintiff as embezzlement and K.

B. The first instance court, in addition to C and D, agreed with the Plaintiff to acquire and operate a construction company by making joint investments with the Defendant; there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant entrusted the Defendant with the execution of the acquisition price; and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant embezzled the Plaintiff’s money; the money paid to K is deemed as F’s money, not the Plaintiff’s money; and the Defendant conspired with K.

The judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that K committed a tort.

C. Although the Plaintiff appealed against this, the appellate court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal while deciding to the same effect as the judgment of the first instance.

The judgment subject to review on July 18, 2017.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.21 2013고단5458

-서울남부지방법원 2016.09.23 2016재나38

-대전지방법원 2020.05.12 2019재나1073

-대구고등법원 2016.10.27 2016재나72

-수원지방법원 2019.11.06 2019재나1027