(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2015.08.25 2014가단11367

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) 대구지방법원포항지원 2015.08.25 2014가단11367

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,007,466 as well as 5% per annum from April 30, 2015 to August 25, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff’s “C” vessel (hereinafter “instant vessel”).

(2) On February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a boarding agreement with the Defendant to work as the captain of the instant vessel from May 1, 2011 to April 30, 2012 (hereinafter “instant boarding agreement”). Since then, the said boarding agreement was renewed every one year.

3) The Defendant left the instant vessel and terminated the instant boarding agreement. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return the said amount to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff paid the advance payment of KRW 16 million to the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiff paid the said amount to the Defendant at the time of the instant boarding agreement, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 16 million to the Defendant at the time of the instant boarding agreement does not conflict between the parties.

However, in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence 1-1-4, witness D, and E’s testimony, it can be acknowledged that the defendant paid KRW 7 million to the head of agency F, KRW 3 million to crew members, KRW 4 million to H, and KRW 2 million to the I as advance payment with the money received from the plaintiff while recruiting crew members to board the ship of this case.

In light of the above facts, even if the captain actually recruited the crew, the party to the labor contract with the crew is the shipowner, considering the fact that the Defendant, the captain, on behalf of or on behalf of the Plaintiff who is the captain, paid the said money in advance to the crew to be on board the instant vessel along with the labor contract. As such, it is reasonable to view that the parties to the legal relationship regarding the payment of the said money are the owner and the said crew. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, the captain, has the duty to return the said money to the Plaintiff

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(b) pay wages to seafarers E and D;

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2014.06.12 2014고정214

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.02.16 2015가단4309

-인천지방법원 2018.08.16 2018고단3611

-창원지방법원 2017.10.18 2016나7269

-창원지방법원진주지원 2016.11.03 2015가단10185