(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단5045437

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.10 2016가단5045437

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim: (a) on December 23, 2011, the Plaintiff requested a bank account in the name of the Defendant to transfer KRW 30 million to the Defendant, who is the representative director of the said company, as the Management Fund D (hereinafter “D”) requires operating funds; and (b) on December 23, 201, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 28,500,000,000, which deducts the prior interest from KRW 30 million, to the bank account in the name of the Defendant.

The plaintiff lent the operating fund to D. Since the money was unjust enrichment received by the defendant, the defendant must return the amount of 28.5 million won to the plaintiff.

② At the time of the above lease, C presented the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, the lessee as security, and notified the bank account number in the name of the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant would be responsible for repayment, and the Plaintiff wired the deposit amount to the account.

Since the defendant borrowed money by borrowing money from C, he/she must pay 28.5 million won of the borrowed money.

③ Even if a person who borrowed money from the Plaintiff is not the Defendant but C, the Defendant provided a bank account under the name of the Defendant, as long as C deceptions the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff knew that it was borrowed by the Defendant).

As a joint tortfeasor, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages of KRW 28.5 million.

2. Determination

A. As to the above ①, the above argument is based on the premise that the party who borrowed money from D or the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that C, who is a bad credit holder, allowed C to use the bank account in the name of the defendant, and C has borrowed money from the plaintiff.

The evidence No. 1 to 3 alone does not recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that D or Defendant is a borrower.

The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence Nos. 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

i) The Plaintiff from August 201 to December 201, 201, included the instant remittance in the instant bank account (including several times.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2018.11.14 2017가단1917

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.06.10 2015가합72545

-대구지방법원안동지원 2015.07.20 2015가단20841

-제주지방법원 2017.01.24 2016가단1389

-대구지방법원 2018.09.21 2018노1625