logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.04.26 2017나1868
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From December 1, 2015 to August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff served as a representative director and an internal director of a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) (hereinafter “B”), and from August 1, 2016 to April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was in charge of business management and remittance as B’s auditors and employees.

B. The Defendant had a claim amounting to KRW 8,000,000 against B as a customer of B.

C. On April 1, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 8,000,000 to the Defendant from the account under one’s own name at around 15:34.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the cause of the claim occurred to the Defendant is B, the Plaintiff should have remitted from the account in B to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, by mistake, remitted KRW 8,000,000 to the Defendant from his account.

The defendant shall return the above 8,00,000 won which he acquired without any legal ground to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize that the above remittance was caused by the Plaintiff’s mistake only with evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including the entire serial number).

B. Rather, according to the following circumstances recognized by evidence No. 1, No. 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is deemed to have remitted money from his account as a staff member in charge of remittance business as the intent to repay to the Defendant.

① The Plaintiff revised the contents to be indicated in its account to “B” and remitted them to “B” and there is no reason to revise the person sending them when remitting them from “B” account.

(2) If the nominal owner of an account is different, another means of security settlement (OTP, etc.) is used. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff proceeds from remittance from his/her own account by mistake, it seems that he/she could have known whether he/she has used a certain account when entering the means of security settlement at the latest.

(3) B representative C shall be April 1, 2017.

arrow