(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.22 2014가단2637

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) 수원지방법원 2015.01.22 2014가단2637

부당이득금반환

Text

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

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserts that, from December 2010 to December 1, 2010, the Plaintiff received C goods from the Defendants, and that the said money should be returned inasmuch as the said money was paid in excess of the actual goods supplied.

The fact that the Plaintiff supplied C goods from the Defendants running D from December 2, 2010 to April 2012 and sold them through broadcasting home shopping, etc. is not a dispute.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Since the Home shopping agreed to pay the price to the defendant on the basis of the quantity of goods sold in the Home shopping, it is argued that the amount claimed was excessive in terms of the quantity of goods sold in the Home shopping.

In light of the contents of Gap evidence No. 1 (Purchase Contract) and the settlement practices through bills between the original defendant and the original defendant that the price should be settled based on the supplied goods that passed the inspection after the inspection, the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 13 was agreed to be settled based on the plaintiff's above assertion, i.e., home shopping sales volume.

It is difficult to deem that the payment has been paid in excess.

There is no other evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's prior payment of the claim amount under the name of glutinous rice purchase price was made on April 201, the transactional relationship is terminated, so that it should be returned again.

However, it is difficult to recognize the above assertion by the evidence alone.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that since some of the products (E, F, etc.) that the defendant supplied to the plaintiff was not actually supplied to the plaintiff, the plaintiff should return the claim amount, which is the difference between the parts.

This part of the assertion also lacks evidence to be admitted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted by any mother.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.08 2015가단5032960

-부산지방법원 2018.01.12 2016가단331568

-서울고등법원 2015.08.13 2014나2028556

-서울고등법원 2017.01.18 2015누50353

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.22 2016가합24387