(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.08.26 2015나1635 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산고등법원 2015.08.26 2015나1635

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding and adding to the following: therefore, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In accordance with the decision of the court of first instance No. 4 of the portion written by the decision of the court of first instance (the fact that C does not have any data from E), even if the Plaintiff’s consistent assertion that the Plaintiff’s consistent assertion was made by investing KRW 170,000,000 to the Defendant at the request of the Defendant, the actual representative of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s share 20% of the Defendant’s shares and the right of management are transferred in return, it is obvious that the other party to the investment agreement is F or E (the subject of performance for the investment claimed by the Plaintiff may not be the Defendant).

b) No. 17 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court is written “no evidence”.

“The following shall be added:

Even if some of the KRW 170,00,00 remitted to the deposit account in the name of D was used for the Defendant’s operating funds, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, it cannot be inferred that there was an investment agreement between C and the Defendant on the Plaintiff’s assertion, and in addition, in a case where contractual performance consists of a third party’s profit as well as the other party to the contract, the party who provided the payment may not claim the return of unjust enrichment against the third party except that the other party to the contract may claim the return of unjust enrichment against the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da66564, 66571, Aug. 23, 2002). Thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant who was a third party, who is not the other party to the payment.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2012.10.11 2012나8213

-울산지방법원 2015.07.22 2014나6848

-대법원 2010. 6. 24. 선고 2010다9269 판결

-대전지방법원천안지원 2015.07.24 2014가합3989

-서울고등법원 2015.05.13 2014나2044107