logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가단12969
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1.The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

Plaintiff

A entered into a cargo transport contract with each of the plaintiffs from April 2012 to March 2014, and from May 201 to March 2012, 201, and thereafter transported the cargo to the defendant's vehicle owned by the plaintiffs, and received the transportation amount ( personnel expenses) and oil expenses from the defendant every month.

B. When paying the above oil cost to the plaintiffs, the defendant paid the fuel subsidy that the plaintiffs received from the head of local government, namely, 335 won per liter or 346 won after deducting the amount of oil subsidy.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The pay subsidies received from the head of a local government claiming the plaintiffs should be attributed to the plaintiffs, who are cargo transport business operators. The defendant, not a trucking business operator, deducted the amount of fuel subsidies from the plaintiffs without any agreement, thereby making an unjust enrichment without any legal ground. Accordingly, the plaintiffs suffered losses.

Therefore, the defendant should return the amount of the fuel subsidy so deducted to the plaintiffs.

B. Determination - The oil subsidy system under Article 29 (2) of the former Trucking Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 8979 of Mar. 21, 2008) provides that the head of a Si/Gun may subsidize a trucking service provider in whole or in part of the increased amount of money, such as a specific amount of tax imposed on oil, etc., to the trucking service provider, is aimed at relaxing the burden of the trucking service provider due to the increase of oil tax, and thus, the oil subsidy system under the above provision is to relieve the burden of the trucking service provider due to the increase of oil tax. Thus, the oil subsidy under the above provision is a trucking service provider and should be reverted to this person who actually bears the oil cost.

arrow