logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.04 2013가단310425
부당이득금 반환
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million in the Defendant C’s deposit account on January 11, 2010 is not in dispute between the parties or recognized pursuant to the evidence No. 7.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendants without any justifiable reason, and sought restitution of KRW 50 million.

Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff should return the lease deposit to D, and D should pay the housing purchase amount to Defendant C, and that the Plaintiff directly deposited the remainder of the purchase price with Defendant C in part of KRW 32.5 million and the previous loan amount of KRW 20 million. The Plaintiff asserts that the said purchase price was already paid in full on October 7, 2009 and the previous loan amount did not exist.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million in the Defendant C’s deposit account without any reason, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the claim for this part of this case cannot be accepted.

2. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 35 million from the Defendants on February 1, 2010, from the Defendants; KRW 10 million on December 21, 2010; and the fact that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 650,000 out of the total sum of the principal and interest in May 2011 that the Plaintiff repaid KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff on May 6, 201 does not conflict.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 20 million on May 16, 201, KRW 17,000 on May 17, 2011, KRW 20 million on May 19, 2011, KRW 20,000 on May 19, 201, and KRW 80 million on May 25, 201, and paid the Defendants exceeding KRW 30 million on May 25, 201.

However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million to the Defendants, on the sole basis of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 19 (including paper numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 2-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the claim cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion.

arrow