logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.09.09 2019나24928
부당이득금
Text

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against which the plaintiff is ordered to pay shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant are both companies aimed at wholesale and delivery business of agricultural products.

On July 5, 2017, the Defendant applied for a payment order with the Plaintiff as the debtor and issued a payment order with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2017Hu3667, Jul. 27, 2017 that “the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant 19,162,00 won and interest rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the day of complete payment,” and the above payment order was finalized around that time.

(2) On October 19, 2017, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against C Bank and the Industrial Bank of Korea under Seoul Eastern District Court 2017TBT No. 201844, Oct. 19, 2017. The Plaintiff paid KRW 19,162,50 to the Defendant on November 3, 201 of the same year. On the same day, the Defendant submitted a written application for the cancellation of the seizure and waiver of the collection order to the above court.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings] The plaintiff's assertion by the parties did not have any transaction with the defendant, and only the defendant traded with D (hereinafter "D").

Nevertheless, as the Defendant did not receive the price of goods from D, it applied for the instant payment order against the Plaintiff who is not a party to the transaction, and the payment order becomes final and conclusive. The Defendant attached the Plaintiff’s transaction account as an executive title and paid KRW 19,162,500 to the Plaintiff.

Of course, the fact that the plaintiff lent his name to D, or that the defendant was well aware of the fact that the plaintiff lent his name to D, so the plaintiff is not liable to the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant paid the amount received from the plaintiff without any legal ground to the defendant.

arrow