(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.10.15 2019가단541945

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) 광주지방법원 2020.10.15 2019가단541945

부당이득금

Text

The defendant is 5% per annum from December 1, 2015 to October 15, 2020 to the plaintiff's KRW 20,000,00 for the plaintiff and its related costs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From July 8, 2013 to May 13, 2014, the Defendant, as an internal director of the EM, operated the said cosmetic, as the representative director of the EM company located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “EM”) and the director of the EM from May 13, 2014 to January 7, 2016.

B. The Plaintiffs operated the Gwangju Dong-gu F building, and the fourth floor from April 23, 2014 to July 16, 2015. From July 17, 2015 to May 2017, 2017, the Plaintiffs operated the Gwangju Teaching Institute’s Gwangju franchise. The Plaintiffs currently operated the Gwangju Dong-gu F building and the 3-4th floor from Gwangjudong-gu 2015 to May 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claim for return of unjust enrichment

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was that the Defendant introduced to establish the Gwangju branch of the E Institute, and the Plaintiff requested H to build the te Institute’s te Institute.

The defendant, in collusion with I who was a director of the E Institute, induced the plaintiffs to be KRW 125 million, despite the fact that the actual test cost of Gwangju branch was KRW 90,000,000, which was the 125,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

After that, the Defendant received KRW 35 million in total from H from April 11, 2014 to April 16, 2014.

As above, the Defendant, in collusion with I, obtained profits of KRW 35 million from the Plaintiffs by deceiving KRW 35 million from the Plaintiffs in a manner of unfashing construction price, without any legal cause, and thereby, thereby causing damages to the Plaintiffs.

Even if the Defendant did not attract to commit an illegal act with I, it shall be deemed that the Defendant and I were in the relationship of partnership as a partner, and since the obligation to return unjust enrichment of KRW 35 million borne by I constitutes a partnership obligation, the Defendant also is jointly and severally liable as a partner of the partnership.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to each of the plaintiffs KRW 17.5 million.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.16 2017가단5144454

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.21 2018나39098

-수원지방법원 2016.12.01 2016나7040

-서울남부지방법원 2014.07.24 2013가합18586

-광주지방법원 2015.04.28 2013가단2837