logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.11.27 2017가단326532
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 1, 2016 to November 27, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who was operating a private teaching institute in Busan Dong-gu, Busan, etc., and the defendant was a person who was a person who was a person with the plaintiff and the Dong-dong branch of the E Institute as a regular manager from May 25, 1994.

B. On November 5, 2004, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with H, the owner of the Plaintiff’s relative and employee Nonparty F, who was the Plaintiff’s employee, for the purpose of acquiring a house to reside, under the name of the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 65 million and the lease period from November 15, 2004 to November 14, 2006. Accordingly, the Defendant completed the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon (hereinafter “registration of chonsegwon”).

C. After that, the Defendant prepared and issued a certificate of cancellation of chonsegwon to H, the registration of the instant chonsegwon creation was cancelled as of June 1, 2016.

The Defendant received KRW 30 million out of KRW 65 million from H and remitted KRW 20 million out of the amount to the Plaintiff’s side.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 4, and Eul 3

2. The parties' assertion

A. The registration of the establishment of chonsegwon on the instant housing was made according to the title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

H, the owner of the instant housing, was unaware that the instant chonsegwon contract was due to the title trust agreement, and thus, the Defendant, the title trustee, obtained chonsegwon on the instant housing.

Therefore, the Defendant, as the title truster, shall return the entire rent received from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that of the Plaintiff’s instruction, not that of the title trust agreement.

After the conclusion of the instant lease contract, the Plaintiff paid a monthly fee of KRW 100,000,000.

arrow