logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.12 2016나2323
부당이득금
Text

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

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) adding Article 2-2(a) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance with respect to the conjunctive claim added in the trial; (b) adding Article 2-2(b) as follows; and (c) adding Article 2-2(b)(8) as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where “the defendant” under Article 2-2(2)(8) is deemed as “the plaintiff”, and therefore, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of

2. The addition;

A. 4) Preliminaryly added to Paragraph 2-A, the defendant did not pay remuneration to the defendant to the plaintiff prior to the expiration of the period of performing his duties in accordance with the provisional disposition order of this case that he bears the responsibility for the payment of remuneration to the defendant, and did not return the payment to the plaintiff. Even after the expiration of the period of performing his duties, the defendant elected the representative of the clan as a management of the business and did not take the above measures to return the payment. This tort caused losses to the plaintiff. B. 3) As seen above, the defendant paid the plaintiff's advance payment with the remuneration to the acting person, and in order to receive the reimbursement of the advance payment, the defendant paid the plaintiff's advance payment with the remuneration to the plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant, as the acting person, has the duty to return the payment to the plaintiff even before or after the period of performing his duties, as argued by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's assertion of tort is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as well as the plaintiff's preliminary appeal in the trial.

arrow