logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.06.13 2016나58274
부당이득금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a service agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant to help the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant service agreement”) and remitted KRW 5 million to the Defendant on May 29, 2015.

B. On October 28, 2015, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff KRW 1 million out of the above KRW 5 million.

C. On August 10, 2016, the complaint of this case, stating the purport of the Plaintiff seeking the return of the remaining four million won out of the five million won of the said money due to the Defendant’s failure to perform his duty of service, was served on the Defendant on August 10, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in B, 2, 3, and 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the ground that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the part of the Defendant regarding the main defense.

The Appellate Agreement refers to the “agreement that does not file a lawsuit with the court even if there is any dispute over rights or legal relations.” Since the Appellate Agreement has a significant effect under the Civil Procedure Act in terms of waiver of the right to a trial guaranteed by the Constitution, it is necessary to strictly interpret the Appellate Agreement in cases where there is any disagreement on the existence or scope of the validity

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Da80449, Nov. 28, 2013). 4, following the Defendant’s statement, the Plaintiff, in the currency with the Defendant’s wife on October 28, 2015, stated “Is the Plaintiff to bear the burden, but if so, Is the Plaintiff will bear the burden.”

However, in light of the above legal principles, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were not able to file a lawsuit with the court regarding the dispute over the instant climate agreement, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. As to the cause of the claim, the Defendant carried out “10 days Chocheon-do for the Plaintiff from May 30, 2015 to September 6, 2015” for the said period.

arrow