(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나13720

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) 수원지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나13720

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company providing the service for the operation of the Internet site, and is engaged in the business of registering and managing “domains”, which is an Internet address owned by an individual on the Internet. The Defendant is a member who has joined the above domain name management service of the Plaintiff, and is engaged in the business of managing and selling the domain names of 15,000.

B. The Plaintiff’s member operated a deposit program in order to provide convenience for settlement when the Plaintiff’s member uses the Plaintiff’s service, and this program was operated within the deposit limit that the members deposited in advance a certain amount to the Plaintiff and deposited at the time of the relevant service settlement. On December 21, 2011, when the Plaintiff’s deposit program was erroneous in the Plaintiff’s deposit program and promised multiple domain registrations on the same order number, only one of the multiple domain names was deducted. On the other hand, when the pre-contracted domain name is cancelled or the pre-contracted is lost, the deposit was refunded to the multiple pre-contracted domains.

C. The Plaintiff’s deposit program’s foregoing error occurred from December 21, 201 to February 23, 2012, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 6,056,500 to the Defendant by mistake. From February 15, 2012 to July 5, 2012, the Defendant used all deposits for the extension of the Defendant’s domain name and the transfer of the domain name to the Plaintiff’s domain.

On July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff sought a refund of KRW 6,056,500 deposited by mistake in the deposit program due to its content certification to the Defendant. The above content certification was served to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 5, 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties is the defendant's deposit.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단201108

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.15 2017가합1740

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.10.28 2018가단236400

-서울남부지방법원 2018.01.19 2017나53451

-서울동부지방법원 2017.06.14 2015가합5468