beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where "2,592,450 won" in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "2,529,450 won" in Part 8 of the judgment of the court of second instance, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Assertion and determination
A. On December 31, 2003, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the above repayment amount of KRW 32,548,081, and delay damages therefrom, since the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,018,631, which was calculated by deducting KRW 534,99,00 as at the time of Defendant C’s deposit claim from KRW 17,529,450, and KRW 15,553,630, and KRW 15,630, and KRW 32,548,081, which was calculated by deducting KRW 534,99.
As to this, the defendants asserted that the above 32,548,081 won is not the plaintiff but the network D, and thus the plaintiff cannot exercise the above right of reimbursement.
B. In order to establish the judgment management of the cause of a claim, first of all, it is required that the office work is another person's business and that there is an intention to vest in another person the actual benefit of the management, i.e., the intention to vest in another person, and that the process of the office work is disadvantageous to or against the principal's will (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da26326, Oct. 10, 197). A third person's repayment is in itself a beneficial interest to the debtor, and thus, it should be acknowledged as beneficial to the debtor and is not contrary to its intention unless there is any counter-proof (see Supreme Court Decision 4293Da729, Nov. 9, 1961). If a third person pays for the debtor through the office management, he/she shall obtain the right to demand reimbursement of expenses for the office work under Article 739 of the Civil Act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da38106 delivered on December 9, 1994). Gilet, A No. 2, and A.