(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.26 2016나305929

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 2017.01.26 2016나305929

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2005, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant by receiving KRW 30 million from the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of C, the Plaintiff’s seat.

B. The Plaintiff, under the name of C, remitted the amount of KRW 7.5 million on August 26, 2005, KRW 1.5 million on August 27, 2005, KRW 1.2 million on the same month, KRW 1.2 million on November 29, and KRW 5.2 million on December 3, 198, KRW 21 million on the same month, and KRW 30.5 million on January 23, 2006 to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “the instant money”). The Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 30.5 million on January 23, 2006, to the Defendant’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff, which caused the plaintiff's claim, remitted the money of this case to the defendant for the repayment of the loan of this case, and the defendant is obligated to return the money of this case to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment since the defendant, in related civil and criminal proceedings, the money of this case was appropriated for repayment of the defendant's claim for the loan of this case and was not appropriated for the loan of this case. Thus, if the money of this case was not appropriated for the loan of this case, the defendant shall obtain the profit of this case without any legal ground, and since the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the same amount, the defendant is obligated to return the money of this case to the plaintiff with unjust enrichment.

3. In light of the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, and the following circumstances acknowledged based on Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant money was appropriated for the instant loan.

As such, the first-party plaintiff's assertion is without merit on different premise.

The monetary amount of this case is three months after the date of lending of the loan of this case.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.09.22 2017가단7875

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.11 2018나209851

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.02.11 2014가단23478

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.05.29 2017가단5602

-광주지방법원 2017.11.10 2017나53599