(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.10.30 2014나6706

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) 서울남부지방법원 2014.10.30 2014나6706

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought a return of unjust enrichment of KRW 37 million, which was paid by the Defendant to the Defendant, from among the purchase price of KRW 87 million paid by the Defendant to the Defendant, and KRW 8 million, which was paid as a brokerage commission. The court of first instance determined the sale price received by the Defendant as KRW 76 million, and cited KRW 26 million, which was deducted from the deposit amount of KRW 50 million, and dismissed that the intermediary fee of KRW 8 million was extinguished by the commercial extinctive prescription.

Since only the defendant appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for the return of the sale price.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except where the defendant’s argument is added with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Matters to be judged additionally;

A. 1) The defendant's argument that the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant on October 26, 2006, and the defendant agreed on KRW 50 million to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff did not reach an agreement upon requesting 76 million and deposited KRW 50 million in the name of agreement around 2007. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid a deposit on March 30, 2007 without reserving any objection, and that the plaintiff's obligation to the plaintiff was extinguished in its entirety. 2) The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant on or around October 26, 2006 according to the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the investigation was conducted, the defendant refused to receive the deposit money from the Seoul Southern District Court in Seoul, Seoul, 2007 to deposit KRW 1947,500,000,000 as a result of the deposit without any specific criminal agreement.

(b).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대법원 2015. 4. 9. 선고 2014다85216 판결

-부산지방법원 2015.04.23 2014고단6970

-대법원 1992. 5. 12. 선고 91다44698 판결

-서울고등법원 2015.10.16 2014나61304

-서울동부지방법원 2012.12.31 2012노1155