logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.21 2013나76712
부당이득금반환 등
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The basic facts are the representative director of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B, who runs the wholesale and retail business of chemical medicine with the trade name of Plaintiff B, maintained a transaction relationship with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”). The Defendant, from around 1993 to October 2009, has been in charge of the collection of claims from F Business Department, does not conflict between the parties.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they were liable for the payment of goods in transaction with F. However, although F did not have granted the defendant the authority to conclude an interest agreement on the above goods payment obligation, the defendant deceivings the defendant that the plaintiffs would deliver the interest on the above goods payment obligation to F. However, the defendant would not delay the payment period for the goods payment obligation to F. If the plaintiffs would pay interest on the above goods payment obligation to F.

Accordingly, from November 7, 2003 to December 2, 2008, Plaintiff A paid a total of KRW 123 million by paying in cash to the Defendant or remitting it to the account in the name of G designated by the Defendant or the Defendant, and Plaintiff B paid KRW 67 million in total by either paying in cash to the Defendant or remitting it to the account in the name of H and G designated by the Defendant from August 2, 2003 to February 2, 2009. However, the Defendant did not deposit the above amount received from the Plaintiffs to F.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount to the plaintiffs for damages caused by illegal acts, since he was remitted the above amount by deception.

In addition, since the plaintiffs were to cancel the above agreement by deceiving the defendant, they are obligated to return the above amount as unjust enrichment.

B. (1) Determinations are written in each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the first instance court new bank.

arrow