beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a company that sells oil to the construction equipment company at the construction site. The Defendants are companies that supply such oil.
The Plaintiff received oil from the Defendants from May 30, 2008 to August 31, 201, and paid KRW 2,585,077,462 in total as the price.
However, the total amount according to each tax invoice issued by the Defendants from January 2009 to September 201 by the Plaintiff is more than KRW 2,183,109,323 than the total amount of the oil price.
Therefore, the Defendants were obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 401,968,139 (i.e., KRW 2,585,077,462 - KRW 2,183,109,323) in relation to the above oil transaction. As such, the Defendants made unjust enrichment, the amount of which is equivalent to KRW 81,535,890, which is a part of the Defendants’ aforementioned
2. Therefore, with respect to whether the Defendants unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 401,968,139 of the oil price without any legal cause, the facts constituting 2,183,109,323 of the total amount according to each tax invoice issued by the Defendants from January 2009 to September 201 can be acknowledged by taking into account the absence of any dispute between the parties concerned or the facts constituting 2,183,109,323 of the Plaintiff’s oil supply to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,585,07,462 of the total amount as oil price exceeding KRW 2,183,109,323 of the Plaintiff’s oil supply to the Plaintiff.
The Defendants are not sufficiently able to recognize that the amount equivalent to KRW 401,968,139 was unjust enrichment as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
(Y) The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,585,077,462 as the oil price to the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants unduly unjust enrichment equivalent to the difference). Rather, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is respectively applicable.