(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.15 2018가단14880

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) 광주지방법원 2018.11.15 2018가단14880

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The Defendant is calculated by calculating the rate of 15% per annum from August 1, 2018 to the date of complete payment to the Plaintiff, 49,414 won, and its interest.

Reasons

1. The fact that there exists between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s liability for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 90,181,500 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not a dispute between the parties.

If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 90,181,500 won and 15% of the annual damages for delay from August 1, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is obviously a day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case.

2. On August 2, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant was extinguished by the repayment of the Plaintiff’s claim, on the ground that the Defendant deposited KRW 90,206,207, including interest in arrears from the Gwangju District Court Decision 2018Da4609, August 2, 2018, by making the Plaintiff as the principal deposit, and KRW 24,707, supra.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the deposit for repayment is insufficient in full or in full, the payment for all of the obligation shall be provided and the deposit for part of the obligation shall be made. The creditor shall not have the effect of extinguishing the obligation even with respect to the deposit portion unless the creditor accepts it (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da37208 Decided October 13, 2005). 90,206,207 won deposited by the defendant as the deposit date for payment is less than KRW 90,25,621 (90,181,50,74,121, and less than KRW 49,414) which is the principal and interest of the obligation on August 2, 2018, which is less than KRW 90,25,621, which is the date of the deposit for payment, and even if the shortage is less than KRW 49,414, which is extremely poor compared to the total amount of the obligation of the defendant. Thus, the deposit is valid in accordance with the principle of good faith.

I would like to say.

As such, if the repayment deposit is legitimate, regardless of whether the creditor's claim for the withdrawal of the deposited article was made, the repayment becomes effective and the obligation is extinguished when the deposit is made.

Supreme Court Order 2001Da2846 Decided December 6, 2002 is rhumd.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 10. 13. 선고 2005다37208 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.05.21 2014나14598

-수원지방법원 2020.12.09 2020나68059

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.29 2015가단5303662

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.25 2020가단5208853

-대법원 2015.05.28 2014다63575