logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.03.19 2014가단208923
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is the mother of the defendant.

The judgment was rendered on March 26, 2012, which sentenced the plaintiff as quasi-incompetent, from the case of the declaration of quasi-incompetency that the plaintiff filed with D et al. as the principal of the case.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of Gap evidence No. 2 is without dispute. The defendant found the plaintiff on August 26, 201, when the plaintiff was hospitalized in the Evalvalescent on the ground of dementia, and received a certificate of application after having the plaintiff file an application for the re-issuance of his/her resident registration certificate with his/her Dong office. After then, he/she had the plaintiff change the passbook re-issuance and password of the plaintiff's account (the above bank F. hereinafter "the above bank account") at the National Bank Seo-dong branch, and then transferred 30 million won for the same day to the defendant's own account using the above passbook and cash card, and withdrawn 6 million won in cash. If the plaintiff transferred money to the above account by issuing the above passbook and cash card to the defendant, the plaintiff at the time is in a state of mental disorder, and thus the above donation contract is invalid or invalid, and the defendant is obligated to return the money to the plaintiff due to unjust enrichment.

In addition, if the defendant stolen the above passbook and cash card from the plaintiff, the defendant is liable to return the above money to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff asserted that he had visited himself on August 26, 201 and delivered a cash card to the defendant who had visited himself on August 26, 201, thereby making a donation equivalent to the deposit amount in the account.

At the time, the plaintiff was not in a state of mental disorder.

The decision-making ability on the assertion of invalidation due to mental disorder is based on the meaning or result of his act on the basis of normal perception and towing power.

arrow