beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “Tgu District Court 201Kadan801118” in Section 2, Section 17 of the first instance judgment to “Tgu District Court 2009Kadan25439”; “Tgu District Court 2009Kadan25439” in Sections 3, 10 to 11 is the same as the reasoning for the first instance judgment; thus, it is consistent with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part of the repair and use "if the Plaintiff's assertion was made by the Defendant using the construction equipment leased from the Plaintiff, the construction site construction work for C-factory construction site is conducted, and the Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff, thereby gaining profits equivalent to KRW 36,450,00 without any legal grounds, and the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the same amount, and thus, the Plaintiff was entitled to seek a return of unjust enrichment, and even if the payment under the contract was made not only the other party to the contract but also a third party's profit, the contracting party who provided the payment can only claim a return of unjust enrichment against the third party, and cannot claim a return by claiming a return of unjust enrichment against the third party.
(Supreme Court Decision 99Da6564, 66571 Decided August 23, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2006Da46278 Decided September 11, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 201Da38568 Decided November 10, 201, etc.). According to each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the plaintiff leased construction equipment under a lease agreement entered into with D Co., Ltd. and received a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit against D Co., Ltd. seeking payment of the construction equipment rent of KRW 36,450,000. Thus, even if the plaintiff was not actually paid the above judgment amount by D Co., Ltd., it cannot be deemed that the damage was inflicted on the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the contract party was a third party, not a party to the contract.