(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.04.20 2016나55848

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) 창원지방법원 2017.04.20 2016나55848

월임료 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court concerning the remaining part except the incidental appeal cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following: (a) it stated that “The fact that it was difficult to relocate a factory was stated that it was difficult to move the factory; (b) since December 1 of the same year, the new lease contract with H was commenced with H, and the plaintiff also stated that the defendant demanded the prompt removal of the building of this case from the 10th of the same month on the ground that it should operate the factory from the 10th of the same month.” Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the incidental appeal

A. On June 31, 2014, the Defendant imposed KRW 4,248,340 on the instant building on June 17, 2014 (from May 17, 2014 to May 16, 2014) as the water supply and sewerage usage fee; the Defendant remitted KRW 4,248,340 to the Plaintiff’s account on June 30, 2014; the Plaintiff received the said money and did not pay the said money as the water supply fee on June 31, 2014; the Defendant did not enter the water supply charge on June 31, 2014 and the additional charge on the water supply charge (hereinafter “water supply charge, etc.”) on July 31, 2014; or the fact that there was no dispute between the parties to the instant building and the Defendant’s submission of KRW 4,248,340 as the water supply charge, etc. on June 31, 2014; or there was no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff did not pay the remitted water fee and it appears that the defendant had to pay the total amount of KRW 4,375,770, such as unpaid water fee, etc., the plaintiff is obligated to return the above KRW 4,375,770, which was exempted from the obligation to pay without any legal ground, to the defendant as unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff received money from the defendant as above 4,248,340 won.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.05.29 2018가합421

-대법원 1987. 12. 22. 선고 87다카613 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2015.02.12 2014나8955

-창원지방법원 2019.11.07 2018나58902

-서울고등법원 2019.01.16 2018누60528