(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나11278

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나11278

부당이득금등

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. From March 5, 2013 to April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff leased D, his father, the Defendant’s father, with construction equipment such as tent, etc., from the construction site of Goungung-gun, Jeonnam-gun, and D was paid KRW 20,00,000 from the Korea Aerospace Research Institute to the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant, after completing the excavation work using the Plaintiff’s construction equipment.

The plaintiff has not yet been paid 7,00,000 won out of 12,393,000 won of equipment rent for the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay 7,000,000 won and damages for delay that have been acquired without any legal ground to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant merely granted D the use of the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant to the relationship in which all the Defendant’s father’s accounts are attached, and did not know the money deposited in the said agricultural bank account, and D paid the Plaintiff all the equipment rent ( KRW 7,00,000, KRW 5,390,000 on June 2015, and KRW 5,390,000 on July 5, 2016), and cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. Determination: (a) the Plaintiff leased D, the Defendant’s father, from March 5, 2013 to April 10, 2013, with equipment and facilities, such as a ceiling air; (b) the Plaintiff incurred a claim for the rent of KRW 12,393,00 in equipment and facilities; and (c) the fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20,00,000 in the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant on May 24, 2013 with regard to the foregoing base destruction work, does not conflict between the parties.

However, even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on the plaintiff's assertion, it cannot be deemed that unjust enrichment has been established between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the above facts of recognition or the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant actually acquired the above KRW 20,000,000, and there is no

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit to further examine.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.10.16 2014고정2507

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2016.07.21 2016고단496

-서울북부지방법원 2021.01.14 2020가단117258

-대전지방법원서산지원 2015.04.15 2014가단224