(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.11.17 2016나10283

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) 대전고등법원 2016.11.17 2016나10283

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the main claim added in the trial and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to this case shall be deemed to be a clerical error in the amount of KRW 231.5 million from the last half of the first instance judgment to the third first half of the first instance judgment (i.e., KRW 250 million x 70%) x 90% x 45.5 million (=65 million x 70%) x 60% - 16,656,00 won x 70% of the amount of KRW 231.5 million (70% of the amount of plaintiff's share of 9 years of money) x 90% x 90 million (70% of the amount of plaintiff's share of 2 years of money) x 60% - 166,56,00 won - 60% of the amount of plaintiff's share of 2 years of money - 60% - 666,500 won for the second instance judgment to the second instance judgment.

2. Determination on the assertion added in the trial

A. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the claim for damages due to nonperformance of obligations or illegal acts among the primary claims is that the Defendant was paid KRW 101,006,000 by abusing the Plaintiff’s unfavorable position (in the event that the Plaintiff fails to comply with the deadline for the delivery of the instant gold sentence, the risk that the instant gold sentence might be interrupted) and refusing to deliver the instant gold sentence, and thus, the Plaintiff asserts that it constitutes nonperformance of obligations or tort, and sought compensation for the damages.

The fact that the Defendant requested the settlement of accounts around March 24, 2015 and refused to deliver the gold sentence in this case is no dispute between the parties.

However, there is no evidence that the above defendant's act constitutes a default or tort which abused the plaintiff's unfavorable position.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, at the meeting on March 31, 2015, the Defendant agreed to refund KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 20 million and delay damages.

In March 31, 2015, the Defendant agreed to return KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff at the meeting.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.12.23 2015가단7202

-대구고등법원 2020.05.21 2019나22730

-수원지방법원 2019.11.21 2019가단2465

-서울고등법원 2019.06.25 2018나2044303

-대전지방법원 2019.07.03 2016가단34318