(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.10.30 2014가단18173

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) 서울남부지방법원 2014.10.30 2014가단18173

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 27,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from June 17, 2005 to October 30, 2014.

Reasons

1. The defendant's judgment on the principal lawsuit shall deliver KRW 100 million to the plaintiff D who operates the corporation C.

The fact that the plaintiff received 10 million won check from the plaintiff on June 17, 2005 is not a dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff received 20 million won back from the defendant is the plaintiff.

In the instant claim claiming that the Defendant did not deliver the above money received from the Plaintiff to D and sought the return of the said money, according to the above fact of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstances.

The defendant raises a defense that he had delivered all the money he received from the plaintiff to D.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in Eul evidence 1-3 and Eul evidence 2, the defendant deposited 10 million won in the account in the name of Eul on June 17, 2005, which was received from the plaintiff, and the defendant later remitted 15 million won on June 29, 2005, and 20 million won on June 30, 2005.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant remitted money to D or C beyond the above recognized amount only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified within the above scope of recognition.

Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 27 million won with unjust enrichment ( KRW 80 million - KRW 15 million - KRW 20 million - KRW 15 million - KRW 20 million) and to pay the Plaintiff 20% interest per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from June 17, 2005, which is the date of the payment of money, until October 30, 2014, which seems reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the payment obligation.

2. The defendant's judgment on the counterclaim shall be the plaintiff.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.09 2014나11524

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.17 2016가단113694

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2019.03.21 2018가합852

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2016.10.14 2015고단472

-창원지방법원통영지원 2019.05.30 2018가합158