(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.07.05 2017나8006

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.07.05 2017나8006

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with the Defendant for forest subdivision with respect to the service cost of KRW 9.5 million (the contract amount of KRW 3.5 million and the remainder of KRW 6 million) with respect to the forest land of KRW 210,006 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest land”), one of the co-owners, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the said service contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant service contract”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not perform his duty under the service contract of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the service cost of eight million won paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is not obligated to return the service price already received, since the Plaintiff failed to complete his/her business due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file for registration of inheritance, although the Defendant conducted the survey and other work in accordance

Furthermore, in addition to the services under the instant service contract, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to perform the survey services, etc., and thus set off the service payment claim corresponding to this part against the Plaintiff’s claim on an equal basis.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the instant service contract was explicitly terminated on May 2016, in view of the following circumstances: (a) there was a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around May 2016, when the division was delayed due to the lack of registration of inheritance by the deceased among co-owners of the forest of this case; (b) the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the return of the service price already paid; and (c) the Defendant also expressed clearly that he would no longer perform the instant service contract; and (d) it is reasonable to deem that the instant service contract was explicitly terminated on or around May 2016.

B. The defendant's duty to return service costs is one of the above.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.02.08 2017나100091

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.03.25 2020가단5277859

-광주지방법원 2018.02.06 2017가단10034

-서울서부지방법원 2015.12.09 2015가단10014

-서울남부지방법원 2018.07.17 2017가단245990