beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 3,500,000 and as to the Defendant C from July 31, 2004 to July 31, 2004.
Reasons
1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between us or in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, together with the purport of the whole pleadings:
Defendant B and Defendant C registered their business under the name of Defendant C and operated a release on bail with the trade name of D.
B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million to Defendant B in the radius while he was in the counter-domination, and Defendant C promised to pay to the Plaintiff a half of the amount equivalent to KRW 3 million on June 7, 2004.
On July 2004, the Plaintiff transferred 500,000 won to Defendant C’s account for fraud.
C. The Defendants did not pay the money to the Plaintiff.
2. In the instant case where the Plaintiff did not seek a payment against the Defendants and sought payment of money between the Defendants, according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 3.5 million with unjust enrichment return, and as the Plaintiff seeks, from July 31, 2004 to July 8, 2015, the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim was served on the Defendant C from January 2, 2015, until January 8, 2015; with respect to Defendant B, 5% per annum as prescribed by each Civil Act until April 3, 2015 when the application for change was delivered; and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
The defendants asserted that three years of extinctive prescription has passed since the plaintiff's claim was a dispute over the transaction of goods and others.
A claim on the price of goods sold by a merchant is three years of extinctive prescription, but this case is not a claim on the price of goods sold by the merchant, but a consumer, and the Plaintiff did not pay the price of goods to the Defendants, and thus the Plaintiff seeks the return of the money paid to the Defendants as unjust enrichment.