logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.06.13 2018나3476
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, using dump trucks, requested the Defendant to carry out the construction of soil at 596 square meters (hereinafter “instant construction”) located in Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, the Plaintiff owned, and the Defendant completed the instant construction work.

B. After completion of the instant construction work, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6.6 million to the Defendant as the construction price.

C. Meanwhile, the construction cost per dump truck, which is put into the instant construction project for eight hours a day, is KRW 600,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers in the case of additional evidence), Eul witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The party's assertion is a dispute over the date on which the defendant performed the work necessary for the construction of this case and its details. The purport of the argument is as follows.

1) On March 19, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should pay only KRW 900,000 to the Defendant as dump truck 3 as of the above date, and that the Defendant was paid KRW 1,80,000 as dump truck 3 as of the above date (the dump truck 90,000 won) as dump truck 24 March 2017 (the dump truck 90,000 won). The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not work on the above date, and that the Defendant was paid KRW 1,20,000 as dump truck 2 on the above date.

(Difference 1.2 million won) Accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed the return of the above sum totaling KRW 2.1 million ( KRW 1.2 million) that the Defendant received in excess of the actual work constitutes unjust enrichment on the ground that there is no legal ground. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that there is no amount of construction work paid in excess by the Plaintiff.

B. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides that a person who gains a benefit from another's property or service without any legal ground and thereby causes a loss to another person.

arrow