beta
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 Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 5 million on September 21, 2017, KRW 30 million on September 25, 2017, KRW 31 million on September 25, 2017, and KRW 60 million on October 4, 2017, respectively.
(hereinafter “the instant money”). (b)
On July 2, 2018, Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) established on July 2, 2018 for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. fishing products, the Defendant is responsible for the representative director of the non-party company.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 6, Eul's evidence 2, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination:
A. First, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant, while operating D (hereinafter "the organization of this case") which is a non-profit organization, would use the money as a fund necessary for operating the business, and would make a certain profit to the organization of this case, or would use it for the fishing business in fact without any intent to use it for the fishing business. The defendant is obligated to pay from the plaintiff the same money as the purport of the claim due to compensation for tort or return of unjust enrichment for cancellation of the declaration of intent by deception. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had a duty to pay the plaintiff with the same money as stated in the purport of the claim due to the plaintiff's illegal act or the return of unjust enrichment for cancellation of the declaration of intent by deception. Since there is no other evidence to support this, the above argument of the plaintiff cannot be accepted without examining any further.
B. Next, the Plaintiff agreed to return the principal at the time when the Defendant received the instant money from the Plaintiff.
Since it is alleged that the Plaintiff agreed to return the instant money to the Plaintiff after receiving the instant money, it is insufficient to recognize that the agreement was concluded, as alleged by the Plaintiff, on the sole basis of the evidence No. 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.