logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.19 2015가합500939
부당이득금
Text

1. Preliminary Defendant D and E jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 230,000,000 and the conjunctive Defendant D with respect thereto on March 27, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the primary defendant

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was confirmed by the primary Defendant C, the president of the primary Defendant, from March 20, 2009 to September 1, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 787,00,000 to the primary Defendant via Defendant D and E (hereinafter “instant loan”). The primary Defendant paid KRW 147,00,000 among them, and did not repay the remainder of KRW 640,000,000.

However, Article 28 (1) of the Private School Act, which provides that a school foundation shall obtain permission from the competent authorities when it intends to assume obligations, is a mandatory provision, so the plaintiff is unable to seek the return of loans to the principal defendant.

The primary defendant used the loan of this case received from the plaintiff as the salary for the primary defendant, and as long as the lending act by the plaintiff against the primary defendant is null and void as it violates the mandatory provisions, the primary defendant is deemed to have obtained unjust enrichment without any legal ground. Thus, the primary defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff 640,000,000 won, which is the amount of the loan of this case, which is the amount of the loan of this case, which was not repaid,

Therefore, upon the plaintiff's express claim, the primary defendant is obligated to pay 230,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff paid KRW 787,00,000 in total by remitting money to the said preliminary Defendants’ account at the request of Defendant D and E or to a third party’s name designated by him, or by issuing a check to the preliminary Defendant D upon the request of Defendant D and E.

However, the facts of recognition and the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone make a direct loan to the primary defendant who is not the primary defendant D and E.

arrow