logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.08 2014나32009
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

The court's explanation of this case is as follows: "Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim of 2.2" in Part 8 of Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim of 2.2." in Part 7 of Part 8, "Judgment on whether or not the plaintiff can seek a return pursuant to Article 742 of the Civil Act" shall be used as "(d. whether or not the plaintiff can claim a return of unjust enrichment pursuant to Article 742 of the Civil Act", and the part of Part 9, "(12............ from the plaintiff to the 9th," shall be changed as follows, and the part of Part 4, "(12.................. from the 15th to the 11th," is the same as the part of the judgment of the

In addition, the plaintiff argues that Article 746 of the Civil Act shall apply to the case where he delivers money under an invalid agreement in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, instead of Article 742 of the Civil Act, and Article 746 of the Civil Act shall apply to the plaintiff, since the agreement in this case constitutes the proviso of Article 746 of the Civil Act, the plaintiff may file a claim for the return of the payment in this case with the defendant. However, even if Article 746 of the Civil Act is applied as the plaintiff's argument, the proviso of Article 746 of the Civil Act does not apply to the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant's right to claim the return in this case is exceptionally acknowledged in the case where the illegality of the beneficiary is significantly high compared to the provider who provided the property due to an illegal cause. As seen above, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant entered into the agreement in this case by threatening the plaintiff. The statement in the evidence No. 6 alone does not have any illegal cause or that the illegality of the defendant is significantly larger than that of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case shall be dismissed.

arrow