(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2020.05.19 2018가단5712

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) 창원지방법원통영지원 2020.05.19 2018가단5712

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C to purchase a power-driven vessel E (72 tons) owned by Defendant C at KRW 1.65 billion as a broker.

B. On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration with respect to the above vessel, and has used the said vessel in fishery business after being handed over the said vessel at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry Eul 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) that the Plaintiff had no choice but to use money exceeding KRW 400 million for operating the instant vessel after purchasing the instant vessel, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff purchased the instant vessel at a level lower than the market price by deceiving D or the Defendants.

(2) Meanwhile, after purchasing the instant vessel on 2016, the Defendants moved parts, such as new radars, installed on the instant vessel, to another vessel, and replaced with old type equipment.

(3) Accordingly, Defendant C is a nominal contracting party, and Defendant B is a real contracting party, and Defendant C is obligated to return 50 million won, which is part of the unlawful gains, to the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the Plaintiff had no choice but to pay the money for operating the instant vessel after purchasing the instant vessel, the said fact alone cannot be deemed to have caused the Defendants or D’s deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the deception.

In addition, the testimony of the witness F alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants replaced the parts of the instant vessel after the sales contract with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.08.23 2016고단1735

-제주지방법원 2015.01.22 2013가합3749

-부산지방법원 2018.03.27 2016가단347754

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.10.08 2015가합348

-제주지방법원 2021.02.10 2019가합10640