logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.23 2016나9610
부당이득금반환 등
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 6,100 won to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. On June 2014, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion demanded money by misrepresenting the Plaintiff’s seat, and transferred KRW 5,700,000 to the account in the name of the Defendant designated by the deceased.

Therefore, since the defendant acquires unjust benefits without cause, it is obligated to return them to the plaintiff as unjust gains.

B. Although there is no legal relationship that causes the account transfer between the remitter and the addressee, in case where the addressee acquires a deposit claim equivalent to the amount of account transfer by account transfer even though there is no legal relationship that causes the account transfer, the remitter shall be entitled to claim the return of unjust enrichment from the addressee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51239, Nov. 29, 2007). However, in a case where the profit of the benefiting was not a legal ground, the unjust enrichment system imposes a duty to return to the benefiting person on the basis of the principle of fair justice, and it is not possible to impose a duty to return if the benefiting was not reverted to the benefiting person.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,70,00 to the post office account under the name of the Defendant on June 10, 2014, and reported it to the Seoul Southern Police Station on the same day. However, in light of the above legal principles, the Defendant immediately withdrawn the entire amount excluding KRW 5,700,00,000, which was transferred to the Defendant’s account, i.e., the total amount of KRW 5,700,000,000, which was transferred to the Defendant’s account, and the entire purport of the pleading, as a whole, in light of the health account, Gap’s evidence, Eul’s evidence, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 1, and Korea Post’s response to financial transaction information as of October 5, 2015.

arrow