logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원의성지원 2019.01.29 2017가합48
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 247,88,976 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 8, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff Company (formerly changed: C Co., Ltd.) and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) entered into a contract for breeding cattle (hereinafter “instant breeding contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff Company supplied the Plaintiff Company with pathology and feed from D and raised pathology using the Plaintiff Company’s breeding ground, and that the Plaintiff Company supplied the Plaintiff’s chickens growth to D (hereinafter “instant breeding contract”).

B. The Plaintiff Company supplied D with bottles equivalent to KRW 138,75,200 and the amount of KRW 42,480,00 and the amount of KRW 229,247,492. D paid KRW 48,012,292 (i.e., the difference between KRW 229,247,492 - KRW 138,75,200 - KRW 42,480,00 (hereinafter “the instant breeding cost”).

C. The defendant from March 3, 2014 to the same year

6. Until September 19, the Defendant transferred KRW 199,876,684 in total from the Plaintiff Company’s trader to the account of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), the representative director of which was the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”). Of that, for KRW 124,05,665 in total embezzled on 26 occasions until May 23, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to KRW 1,00,000 on May 4, 2016 due to the recognition of the crime of occupational embezzlement, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,00,000 on May 4, 2016. ② The second year from May 15, 2014 to the next year.

6. By September 19, 200, KRW 75,871,019, total amount of embezzlement nine times was found guilty and was not prosecuted on July 31, 2015 at the head office of the original district public prosecutor’s office, in relation to the crime of the above 2015 Go-Ma70 and the comprehensive crime.

【Recognition of Fact-finding】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Requests for unjust enrichment;

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant received, instead of the instant breeding cost to be paid by the Plaintiff Company, without any legal ground, the Plaintiff Company received the instant breeding cost, and thus, received unjust enrichment from the Plaintiff Company as unjust enrichment.

arrow