logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2015.04.27 2014나425
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of the following Paragraph 2 among the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be mard;

A. Of the judgment of the first instance court, “There is the last 5th of the first instance judgment,” “(On the other hand, the Plaintiffs asserted that the obligation of the Defendant to install poppy valves and a measuring instruments room falls under the original impossibility of implementation, on the premise that the said contract was concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and seek return of unjust enrichment from the cost of installing poppy valves and measuring instruments room).”

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the Notice Nos. 8, 11, and 12 of the Decision of the court of first instance stating that the Notification of this case constitutes an administrative disposition as follows.

It is no longer possible to carry out water supply works due to the disadvantage of cancellation.

As such, the actual enforcement of the payment of the water supply construction cost to the actual user who wants the water supply construction work, it shall not be deemed that the imposition of the water supply construction cost is not simply an act of expressing intention or de facto notification without coercion, and the imposition of the water supply construction cost shall be deemed to impose the monetary liability to the applicant for the water supply construction work. It may be sufficiently anticipated that there is any dispute in the case of the defendant's fault in calculating and imposing the water supply construction cost or in recognizing the calculation method or the calculation requirement, or in the procedure for imposing the procedure. In such a case, the person who actually seeks to enjoy the approval of the water supply construction work and the beneficial disposition of the implementation of the water supply construction work, who actually maintained the disposition of approval for the water supply construction work, intends to separately dispute only the imposition of the water supply construction cost while maintaining

arrow