logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.18 2018가단5247886
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) the “NW equipment supply and installation services for the construction of the web system of the Nonindicted Company” (hereinafter “instant services”) for KRW 102,025,220, and then subcontracted the instant services to the Defendant in KRW 99,053,020 on the same day.

B. The Defendant re-subcontracted the instant service to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) with the price of KRW 9,1850,000.

C. The price for the instant service subcontract was calculated as follows, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 52,634,010 to the Defendant on December 31, 2015 under the said contract.

“E” Program Security Software (SL VPN) Total of KRW 7,81 million 6,215,00 won 9,053,020 won 14,738,020 won

D. Since then, D was retired on October 2016 without completion of the instant service.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1-3 and 6-3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Of the Plaintiff’s instant services, the part performed by the Defendant via D is limited to the supply of security software and NT servers, and the part of the “E” program was not completed. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff rescinded the said part of the instant service subcontract on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligations as above.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the remaining KRW 31,680,990 (=52,634,010 - 20,020 won) remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 20,953,020, which falls under the security software and the NT server, out of the already paid amount (i.e., KRW 14,738,020).

B. The service of this case was completed within the scope of the work originally demanded by the non-party company. However, the part that the non-party company subsequently demanded was not completed due to the fact that the non-party company subsequently demanded to do so.

Ultimately, the defendant is the plaintiff of this case.

arrow