logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.05.14 2013가단15728
부당이득금 반환(대위청구)
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 24,99,998 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 27, 2011 to April 2, 2013.

Reasons

1. Claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a creditor against the obligor D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “debtor”).

Defendant B and the debtor jointly inherited the right to claim the return of the lease deposit against the deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”).

Nevertheless, Defendant C, along with Defendant H, used the entire lease deposit of the Deceased from the obligor I following the death of the obligor.

The debtors have the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the claim for return of deposit according to each inheritance share among the above lease deposit against Defendant C.

Since the Plaintiff exercised the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment on behalf of the insolvent debtor C, Defendant C is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff.

B. The reasoning of the judgment is insufficient to acknowledge that the part of the evidence No. 3 (the "CJ" among the evidence No. 3) submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence No. 1 to No. 8 (including the paper number) and the testimony of the witness I submitted by the Plaintiff, including the evidence No. 3 (the document No. 3) that the part of the "CJ" was constituted by the Defendant C, and it is difficult to view that Defendant C, even based on the description of the evidence No. 3 itself, was responsible for the deceased's lease deposit, and the testimony of the witness I alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C suffered damage to the debtor by using the leased deposit received from the deceased, and that

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the claim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow