(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.11.10 2014가단8612

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) 대구지방법원 2015.11.10 2014가단8612

부당이득금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff owed the Defendant (hereinafter “instant debt”). The Plaintiff asserted that the instant debt amount was 108,00,000 won in total as indicated in the attached Table 1, and that the Plaintiff borrowed interest free of interest as to the principal amount as indicated in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “C’s debt”). The Defendant paid a total of KRW 161,40,000 to the Defendant for the repayment of the said debt amount, as listed in the attached Table 2, for the repayment of the said debt amount, 53,40,000 (161,40,000-108,000,000,000) to be used for the repayment of the Defendant’s debt after the repayment of the instant debt amount, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff at will, as unjust enrichment.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant lent a total of KRW 112,00,000 to the plaintiff (the defendant asserts that he lent a total of KRW 3 million on October 10, 2008, and KRW 1 million on October 22, 2008, to the plaintiff in cash, in addition to the attached list 1) to the plaintiff as interest rate of KRW 5 million on October 22, 2008. No part of the amount the plaintiff claimed that he paid to the defendant (No. 1,5,7 in the attached list 2) was paid to the plaintiff, and since the remaining amount was paid as part of the principal and interest of the debt of this case, it was not unjust.

2. In order to file a claim for the return of unjust enrichment from the payment on the market, the person who paid the benefit must prove that the cause of the benefit is specified and that the cause of the benefit has become null and void or cancelled, and that the other party who received the benefit is not obliged to prove that the benefit has legal grounds.

First, it is insufficient to recognize that the amount of money Nos. 1, 5, and 7 in the attached Table 2 was paid to the defendant only with the testimony of the witness D and the statement No. 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is limited to the debt of 108,000,000 won loan agreement with interest-free interest.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2017.11.23 2017나52839

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2020.09.24 2019가합10547

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.12.19 2018가단30968

-부산지방법원동부지원 2014.11.11 2013가단22180

-대구지방법원 2015.11.04 2015나302732