logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.07.13 2016가단26890
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, which caused the claim, received the instant payment order on the ground that he had a claim for gas price of KRW 18,353,238, but fraudulently acquired unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 52,084,682 by deceiving the Plaintiff and unfairly raising the gas price.

If the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment offsets the defendant's claim for gas price, there is no money to be paid by the plaintiff, so compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking damages of KRW 3,053,025 due to unilateral suspension of transaction with the Incheon District Court 2015da73103, and the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the Defendant with the Incheon District Court 2016Gadan3385 against the Defendant, claiming for unjust enrichment of KRW 52,084,682. On November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 6% per annum from the above court from June 1, 2015 to November 24, 2016 to the Defendant, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment. 2. The Defendant’s main claim and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

B. The Plaintiff appealed against this. “1. The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 6,00,000 to the Defendant by June 22, 2017. However, in the event that the Plaintiff is negligent in performing the above payment obligation, the Plaintiff shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the date of payment to the day of full payment. 2. The remainder of the Defendant’s principal claim and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim are waived. 3. The above adjustment clause is limited to this case, and the Incheon District Court 2016Kadan26890 claims are separate cases.”

(Reasons for recognition) No. 2017 Ss. 65845, 2017s. 65852) / [Grounds for recognition] the statement of evidence No. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The judgment of the court below is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant made unjust enrichment from the gas price only by the statement of evidence No. 1 (Counterclaim).

arrow