(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.28 2015가단5209456

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.28 2015가단5209456

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant leased the first floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and operated a general restaurant in the name of D (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to acquire the right and facility of the instant store, and concluded the following terms and conditions (hereinafter “instant contract”).

- Area: 121.84 - Total premium of KRW 60 square meters - Total premium of KRW 35,000,000: 3,000,000 (payment at the time of a contract) and balance: 32,000,000 won (payment date November 16, 2012): Contract under the present condition of the present facility - Matters subject to special agreement: All facilities other than the contract under the present condition, coffee money, scurine, cruction, and air audience shall be transferred.

C. On November 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessor E of the instant store, and the Defendant paid all the premium for the instant contract to the Defendant, and changed the trade name to F upon delivery of the instant store, and began to operate the instant store in November 2012. D.

E filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant store (this Court case No. 2013Da264522) by asserting that the Plaintiff was in arrears and the lessor had terminated the lease contract, and was sentenced by the court on July 3, 2014 to order the payment of unjust enrichment, such as delivery of the building and arrears.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 4, 5-1, 2, 7-1, 2, and 13-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion of unjust enrichment on the facilities was not owned by the Defendant, but the alcohol cooling and spons terminal, among the facilities acquired from the Defendant through the instant contract, and the project beam was destroyed, and the hot spring was not installed.

Even if the defendant is not his own ownership, he was the plaintiff as his own owner, and the fact that he did not work and did not speak.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.06.20 2017나212720

-서울서부지방법원 2014.09.25 2013가단33280

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.02.18 2015가단111244

-서울남부지방법원 2020.07.24 2019나57747

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.02 2015나32675