(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.10.13 2015가단9907

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.10.13 2015가단9907

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On May 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant with two negotiable certificates of deposit in the attached list (a total of KRW 200 million) issued to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant negotiable certificates of deposit”), and secured the same and borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “the loan of this case”). 【The ground for recognition of this case’s loan of this case’s loan of this case’s No. 3, Gap’s certificate No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's argument asserts that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to pay the loan of this case to the defendant and receive the certificate of this case upon the conclusion of the trial on the actual owner of the certificate of this case. On August 16, 2006, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to provide 20 million won to the defendant and return the certificate of this case, but the defendant refused to return it without justifiable grounds. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return 200 million won equivalent to the face value of the certificate of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. The Plaintiff paid the loan of this case to the Defendant on the sole basis of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the performance has been provided, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1-2 and 1-2, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant on the charge that the Defendant embezzled the instant certificate of deposit as a collateral for the instant loan, and the prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors’ Office issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on July 25, 2007 (defluence of evidence). The Plaintiff again filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant for the same criminal facts, but the prosecutor of the same public prosecutor’s office dismissed the instant case on May 15, 2009, and the instant certificate of deposit via the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울남부지법 2009. 7. 2. 선고 2008가합21793 판결

-대법원 2013. 4. 11. 선고 2012다44969 판결

-인천지방법원 2010. 10. 14. 선고 2010구합966 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.05.13 2015나2062249

-대법원 1991. 5. 24. 선고 91누407 판결