beta
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. On July 2014, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the cosmetic sales business, became aware of C through the Internet cosmetic volume sales advertisement, and ordered C to order C, such as the details of the order in the attached sheet, from around that time to around 2015.
B. Upon C’s request, the Plaintiff remitted the price of goods to a deposit account in the name of the Defendant, a copy of the money deposited in the attached sheet, as stated in C’s attached sheet. The amount that the Plaintiff remitted from November 6, 2014 to January 15, 2015 is KRW 60,752,700 in total.
C. However, C only supplied cosmetics equivalent to KRW 6,887,600 in total to the Plaintiff, and did not supply the remainder of KRW 53,865,100 (=60,752,700 - 6,887,600).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The primary claim is that the defendant lent a passbook to Skyman C to use it for the cosmetic transaction with the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not the business owner C but the defendant, so the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the transaction between the plaintiff and C.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 53,865,100 won and damages for delay paid by the plaintiff to C as damages to the plaintiff.
B. 53,865,100 won out of the amount deposited into a deposit account in the name of the defendant upon the request of the plaintiff in the first preliminary claim is acquired by the defendant without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above 53,865,100 won and damages for delay due to the return of unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.
C. Since the defendant of the second preliminary claim is the employer status of C, he is liable for the employer's tort against the plaintiff. Even if not, he aided and abetted the illegal act of C by lending the passbook to C. Thus, the plaintiff as the joint tortfeasor.