logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.10.02 2018가단13294
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From October 2010, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant with the trade name “D” in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and changed the business name on February 1, 2013 to E.

B. Accordingly, around that time, the National Bank F account in the name of E (hereinafter “instant account”) was opened and used for expenses and other expenditures.

C. Around June 2015, the Plaintiff sold the above restaurant, and deposited KRW 58,392,80 from Nonparty G and H in the instant account under the pretext of the premium, etc., but E arbitrarily embezzled some of the money, and died around May 2016.

The defendant is the sole heir of the above E, and the remaining amount of 45,391,800 won excluding the plaintiff's 13,001,000 won used by the plaintiff among the above 58,392,80 won deposited in the account of this case (=58,392,800 won - 13,001,00 won) is liable to return unjust enrichment.

(Plaintiff asserted the amount claimed in the complaint, but changed the above assertion in the preparatory document dated January 31, 2019. 2. According to the record of No. 1 of the evidence No. 2, according to the judgment No. 201, Jun. 22, 2015

6. The fact that KRW 58,392,80 was deposited in total on three occasions from G and H, and the sum of KRW 4,200,000 on July 13, 2015 and July 21, 2015 is about KRW 60,000. However, around July 31, 2015, it is recognized that the balance of the instant account was about KRW 60,000,000. The details of the withdrawal during the said period include a small amount of KRW 121,220,00 in convenience stores, restaurants, etc., including KRW 90,000,000.

However, on June 23, 2015 and June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff recognized the fact that he remitted KRW 13,001,00 from the instant account to K, etc., and that he/she possessed and used the check card connected to the instant account. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is readily concluded that all of the withdrawal details have been conducted through E during the said period.

arrow