logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.01.15 2015가단3894
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,540,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from February 26, 2015 to January 15, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the processing and supply of gold parts with the Defendant, and received the gold parts supplied by the Defendant from that time.

B. As between January 17, 2012 and September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 232,043,318 to the Defendant as the price for gold-type parts. However, the Plaintiff received only a tax invoice of KRW 188,35,343 from the Defendant during the period from December 19, 201 to August 30, 2014.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap 1 and 2 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion paid KRW 232,043,318 to the Defendant as the price for gold-type parts between January 17, 2012 and September 30, 2014. However, the Plaintiff received only a total of KRW 188,35,343 from the Defendant during the period from December 19, 2011 to August 30, 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to refund to the Plaintiff the excess payment amount of KRW 43,687,975 (= KRW 232,043,318 – KRW 18,35,343) and delay damages therefrom.

B. A summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) ① the Defendant issued a tax invoice of KRW 19,376,830 in the name of B (representative C) with the Plaintiff’s consent; ② the Defendant did not pay value-added tax; and supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 22,261,820 without the issuance of the tax invoice; ③ upon the Plaintiff’s request, the Defendant paid KRW 4,00,000 in lieu of the Defendant’s credit card. Accordingly, the Defendant additionally supplied the goods of KRW 41,638,650 (= KRW 19,376,830, KRW 22,261,820) in addition to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff (= KRW 19,376,830, KRW 22,820) in addition to the tax invoice issued by the Defendant, and the amount exceeds the unjust enrichment claimed by the

C. Although there is no dispute between the parties as to the total amount of the tax invoice issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and the total amount of the price paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the goods supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as a dispute over the goods actually supplied to the Plaintiff

arrow