(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가단212399

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가단212399

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, with the trade name “A”, entrusted the 88 golf membership purchase brokerage business to B, which runs the golf membership trade brokerage business, and paid 11.25 million won in total as the purchase price from October 23, 2013 to November 1, 2013.

B made voluntary consumption of KRW 5,1250,000 among the said money, and remitted the remainder of KRW 50,000 to the defendant who runs a golf membership transaction brokerage business under the trade name of the National Federation of Rights and Exchange of Rights.

The transaction of golf membership with the Plaintiff’s request for purchase was not sexual intercourse, and the Defendant did not return KRW 50 million to the Defendant, although there was another loan claim against the Defendant. However, the Defendant expressed his intention to offset the above amount of KRW 50 million against the refund claim against the Defendant and did not return it.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 5, All purports of oral argument]

2. As long as the Defendant alleged to have received the remittance of KRW 50,000 from B under the pretext of changing the purchase of golf membership from B, it cannot be offset against the Defendant’s other claim against B unless the transaction with respect to the said claim is sexually different, and it should have been returned to B as it is. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obliged to return the said KRW 50,000 to

3. We examine the judgment. The plaintiff delegated the purchase of golf membership to B and did not have any delegation relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. In mediating golf membership transactions by remitting the money received from the clients of the plaintiff et al. who requested the trade of golf membership, the plaintiff agreed to prohibit offset against the client's monetary refund claim by the difference between B and the defendant.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that such offset has been prohibited under the customary law of the industry in which B or the defendant traded.

Therefore, the defendant's other loan claims against B are refunded to B the above 50,000 won.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.24 2015나31192

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.20 2016가합3787

-대법원 2008. 3. 14. 선고 2007도7568 판결

-대법원 1997. 10. 14. 선고 96누14746 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.23 2015가합12159