logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
인천지방법원 2015.10.06 2015가단200530
부당이득금
Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, as well as Defendant B, at the rate of 20% per annum from March 10, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Claim against Defendant B and D

(a) Description of claims: as described in the part on Defendant B and D of the grounds for the attachment;

(b) Defendant B: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

(c) Defendant D: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant C and E

A. Defendant C transferred the instant vehicle to Defendant E by forging a seal imprint certificate, a vehicle sales contract, a vehicle operation permit, a vehicle abandonment certificate, and a transfer delegation letter in the name of the Plaintiff, using a certificate of personal seal impression submitted by the Plaintiff to F for identification verification, following the transfer of the instant vehicle without changing the name via Defendant B and D.

Defendant E sold the instant vehicle to G and received KRW 23,000,000.

Defendant C and E committed an unlawful act with the owner of the instant vehicle and the driver of the instant vehicle, knowing that the instant vehicle embezzled by Defendant B was one of the so-called large vehicles, and thereby distributed the instant vehicle to a third party without nominal transfer. As such, Defendant C and E committed unjust enrichment equivalent to the sales price of the instant vehicle. As such, the said Defendants are jointly and severally liable with Defendant B and D to compensate the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to KRW 23,00,000.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C, E, was involved in the act of embezzlement of the instant motor vehicle by Defendant B, and D, or forged the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, etc., or distributed the instant motor vehicle without the Plaintiff’s consent.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B and D is justified, and all claims against the defendant C and E are dismissed on the ground that they are without merit.