logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.26 2015가단5026583
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 20, 2009, C (D prior to the opening of the name) drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the purport that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff at 4% per month and on January 20, 2010.

B. On October 20, 2009, C transferred KRW 50,000,00 to the Plaintiff the repayment claim of the lease deposit against the lessorF of the Gangnam-gu Seoul E-building (hereinafter “instant building”) with respect to the 1st floor of the said loan, and on June 22, 2010, C notified the F of the assignment of the said claim and sent F the notification of the said assignment of claim to the F.

C. Meanwhile, around August 15, 2008, F concluded a lease agreement with C and C to lease the first floor to the Defendant, who is the husband of the instant building, at KRW 50,000,00 (C50,000, G 130,000) with the lease term of 2 years, and the lease deposit of KRW 180,00,00 (C 50,000, G 130,000), and around August 27, 2010, the lease term of the instant building was terminated, and around August 27, 2010, at KRW 50,000, the lease deposit of KRW 50,000, and the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,00 in lieu of the lease deposit of KRW 30,00 in lieu of the lease deposit of the Defendant.

The Defendant received KRW 38,241,212 from F on December 13, 2012, after the termination of the above lease agreement.

E. Meanwhile, on July 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for a notice of lawsuit with F on July 1, 2015, and the said notice of lawsuit reached F on June 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence 7, 8, and 9, the obvious facts of this court and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff claiming restitution of unjust enrichment and tort damages (1) is the lessor who, despite being aware that the Defendant’s wife C transferred the claim to the Plaintiff for the refund of the lease deposit against F, intentionally changed the name of the lease on the part of the Defendant and intended to avoid this.

arrow