(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.10.17 2018가단8820

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.10.17 2018가단8820

부당이득반환

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. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff’s mother C, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, disposed of KRW 440,000,00 in the price for the first floor No. 103 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and left KRW 148,00,000 as the Plaintiff’s share. However, after the deceased’s death, he/she left KRW 60,00,000 to E, who is the Plaintiff’s mother, and charged KRW 88,00,000 to the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff’s punishment, for use at the time of the Plaintiff’s necessity. The Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s aforementioned KRW 88,00,000 as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the deceased paid approximately KRW 80,000,000 to the deceased as a self-help at the time of the purchase of the instant real estate.

For this reason, the deceased paid 88,00,000 won, which is a part of the proceeds from the disposal of the above real estate, to the defendant, and the deceased's request for the share of the plaintiff is not kept by the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request for return.

2. In the judgment, the deceased paid KRW 88,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Defendant out of the proceeds from the disposal of the instant real estate, and the deceased’s death on February 23, 2017 does not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by the statement in subparagraphs A through 3.

However, with respect to the fact that the deceased left custody for the defendant to recover and use the money of this case when the plaintiff needs to be found after the death, it is not sufficient to recognize this only with the statement of No. 4-1 and No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion as to the reasons for payment of the money of this case.

Furthermore, unjust enrichment means obtaining a benefit without any legal ground to hold it, thereby causing damage to another person, and the gain is a substantial benefit. However, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was unjust enrichment for the money remitted by the deceased to the defendant.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2017.06.22 2016가합11580

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.10.14 2016가합101487

-서울북부지방법원 2018.04.06 2017나3374

-서울북부지방법원 2018.04.04 2017가단111182

-광주지방법원 2017.12.13 2017나55748