(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.05.19 2014가단44960

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) 대전지방법원 2015.05.19 2014가단44960

부당이득금

Text

1. Defendant C’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 3, 2013 to December 12, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment without pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 3-1, and 4, the Plaintiff received the phone call from the deceased on June 3, 2013 and returned KRW 42,00,000 from one bank in the name of the Plaintiff to the agricultural bank passbook in the name of the Defendant B, upon the order of the deceased’s non-defforcing winner. However, the phone call of the deceased was all false; 36,022,80, out of the amount remitted to the passbook in the name of the Defendant B; and the Plaintiff received the return of KRW 5,977,200, which remains in the passbook in the name of the Defendant B on August 27, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B had a duty to return KRW 36,022,80 to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment because Defendant B obtained a benefit equivalent to the amount that was remitted to his account under his name without any legal cause. 2) The Plaintiff’s primary claim (the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment) and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone withdrawn the above amount.

It is difficult to deem that the deposit claim equivalent to the above withdrawn money has been actually acquired.

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

C. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, as Defendant B participated in the tort committed by the unclaimed persons, Defendant B should compensate for damages for the amount of KRW 36,022,80,00 that was withdrawn. 2) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to have known or could have known that Defendant B was able to use his bankbook for the crime of telephone financial fraud, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is also justified.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제208조 제3항 제1호

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.05.26 2014가단47822

-대전지방법원 2015.04.17 2014가단12482

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.27 2016나50482

-전주지방법원 2015.10.28 2014나10536

-서울북부지방법원 2016.07.20 2016가단108219