(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.10.24 2017가단113446

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) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.10.24 2017가단113446

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operated the advertising team, and the Defendant is a person who has been in charge of the advertising business that can conclude an advertising contract with the said private teaching institute as the head office of strategic planning in the English Institute of English (hereinafter “private teaching institute of this case”) and recommended the head office of the private teaching institute to the head office.

B. Around 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an advertising contract with the instant private teaching institute in the amount of KRW 300 million on the Defendant’s recommendation.

C. After that, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 20 million between KRW 25 million and KRW 25 million.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Party’s assertion 1) The amount of KRW 20 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was paid in connection with the orders for the advertisement contract with the pertinent private teaching institute in the future, and since there was no subsequent share of the advertisement contract corresponding thereto, the said amount constitutes unjust enrichment obtained without any legal cause and thus, the Defendant shall return the said money to the Defendant. 2) Upon the Defendant’s recommendation, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million to the Defendant at KRW 30 million, not as the price for the additional advertisement contract.

B. In the case of the so-called unjust enrichment for which one of the parties who made a certain performance according to his/her own will and subsequently claims the return of the benefits on the grounds that there is no legal ground, the burden of proving that there is no legal ground is the person who

In such cases, a person who seeks the return of unjust enrichment shall, together with the existence of the fact causing the act of payment, prove that the cause has ceased to exist due to the extinguishment of the said cause due to invalidation, cancellation, cancellation, etc., or prove that there was no ground which could not cause the act of payment from the beginning.

Supreme Court on January 24, 2018

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.06.09 2019나35979

-울산지방법원 2020.10.29 2019나14301

-대전지방법원 2019.01.08 2018가단3103

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.01 2017나74223

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.09.18 2019가단787