logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.22 2015나17637
부당이득금반환
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. The Defendant claimed KRW 72,612,00 from March 20, 2012 to June 15, 2012 that the Plaintiff supplied landscaping trees to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 55,339,970 to the Defendant as the price for landscaping trees.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Nos. 5 and 8, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff with landscape trees equivalent to KRW 42,428,00,00, the Defendant received KRW 55,339,970 from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 12,91,970 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 6 (including additional numbers), the defendant is found to have supplied the plaintiff with landscape trees equivalent to KRW 50,012,00 as listed below, and the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 55,339,970 to the defendant is as stated above. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5,327,970 won (= KRW 55,339,970 - KRW 50,012,00) and the damages for delay calculated annually from January 10, 2015 to April 30, 2015, which is the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case.

The Plaintiff filed a claim for delay damages from December 13, 2012, after the final payment of the price for landscaping trees was made. However, the obligation to return unjust enrichment claims without setting a deadline for the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is held liable for delay from the time of receipt of the claim for performance. The Plaintiff filed a claim for performance with the Defendant, who is the duty to return, before filing the instant lawsuit.

Since there is no proof of assertion as to the fact that the defendant is a malicious beneficiary, it is only damages for delay after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

arrow