logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.12.02 2014가단4644
부당이득금 반환
Text

1. The part of the claim in respect of KRW 2,604,551,269 expanded in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 26,00,00 as unjust enrichment on the part of the instant lawsuit. However, the Plaintiff extended the claim to KRW 2,630,551,269 on March 20, 2015 through a preparatory document as of March 20, 2015, but the Defendant did not supplement the Plaintiff’s stamp even with the order to correct the stamp of KRW 2,604,551,269 ( KRW 2,630,51,51,269 - 26,000), which is the part of the claim expanded among the instant lawsuits, (i) the part of the instant lawsuit, as of August 29, 2016.

2. Determination on the claim amounting to KRW 26,00,000, written in the complaint of this case

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff established and operated a personal entrepreneur C, and around March 1993, D Co., Ltd. established D Co., Ltd., and around March 1998, as liquidator of D Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the Defendant sold shares in the name of the Plaintiff on December 23, 1995, under the name of the Plaintiff, from around December 1991, to around May 1, 1993, D Co., Ltd., and from June 1, 2000 again, to June 2008, E Co., Ltd., respectively.) the Plaintiff sold shares in the name of the Plaintiff on December 23, 1995 (hereinafter “instant real estate shares”). The Plaintiff sold shares in the name of Nonparty 2, 1/10 shares in the instant real estate title trust to Nonparty 5, 205.

3) KRW 26,00,000 out of the sale price for the share in the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant dispute”)

September 7, 2005

9.8. Around August, the Defendant’s name was deposited into the National Bank Account (H).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant paid the amount of the dispute of this case to the defendant around September 2005 and used it as the management fund of the E company by paying the amount to the representative director of E company.

arrow