logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.03.31 2015나28
부당이득반환 등
Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the Defendant at the court of first instance against the Defendant, claiming for consolation money of KRW 10,00,000 and delay damages therefor, for the reason that the Defendant, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, interfered with the Plaintiff’s business, and for the reason that the Defendant’s withdrawal from the NAS vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) received from the Plaintiff, 28,161,00 won and delayed payment damages for the use of the NAS vehicle without title during the period from May 24, 2013 to July 26, 2013, for unjust enrichment. The Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff at the court of first instance against the Plaintiff, claiming for reimbursement of unpaid retirement allowance of KRW 930,648, holiday allowance and annual paid leave allowance of KRW 11,958,405. The Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s allowance and annual paid leave allowance of KRW 11,958,405 is all dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of this part of this case’s appeal.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, who was the head of the Plaintiff’s headquarters, voluntarily retired on May 24, 2013, has the obligation to return the instant vehicle to the Plaintiff upon the termination of the labor contract as of July 24, 2012, because the Plaintiff’s continued use of the instant vehicle provided for the Defendant’s business activities on or before July 26, 2013 without any title. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff by return of unjust enrichment, which is equivalent to the rental cost of the same model during the pertinent period. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 28,161,00,000, and the delay damages therefor.

arrow