(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.05.15 2018가단70212

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.05.15 2018가단70212

부당이득금

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 Defendant worked for the Plaintiff Company from January 1, 1999 to April 30, 2016.

B. Around the time of retirement as above, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff, setting the sales amount of KRW 1 million with respect to the motor vehicles listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”), and on May 13, 2016, the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant, such as the written claim regarding the instant motor vehicle, was completed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 2, 3, and 8, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant entered into an agreement prohibiting competition and maintaining trade secrets at the time of his retirement, and the Plaintiff trusted that agreement and sold the instant vehicle to the Defendant in the amount of KRW 14 million, which reaches the value of KRW 14 million at the time.

However, after the sales contract of this case, the defendant committed an act of violating the above prohibition of competitive business.

In light of these overall circumstances, the sales contract of this case must be revoked because it is clear that it is a defendant's deception or the plaintiff's expression of intent by mistake.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the instant motor vehicle by restitution to the Plaintiff, and to deliver the instant motor vehicle to the Plaintiff, and to pay the money calculated at the rate of KRW 3.50,000,000, equivalent to the rent for the instant motor vehicle from May 13, 2016

B. The instant sales contract was concluded by the Defendant’s deception on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's mistake is based on the plaintiff's mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff's assertion is rejected without the need to examine the remainder of the issue.

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

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.06.28 2017나65633

-대전지방법원 2017.12.07 2017나2890

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2016.06.07 2015가단4384

-서울남부지방법원 2021.03.12 2020가단272152

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.04.10 2018가단9274