(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.01 2015가단124368

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) 대구지방법원 2016.12.01 2015가단124368

부당이득금반환 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From March 2014 to March 6, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied 116,461,990 won out of the price, to E (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order with the Daegu District Court 2015 tea3080 on the price of the goods with respect to the non-party company and received a payment order with the purport that “the non-party company shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 116,461,90 and interest and delay damages thereon,” and the said payment order was finalized on May 30, 2015.

C. Nonparty Company entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on March 26, 2015 with respect to each of the instant real estate owned by it, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of Defendant as Daegu District Court No. 69187, Mar. 30, 2015.

At the time of the above sales contract, each of the instant real estates was set up a maximum debt amount of KRW 1,380,000,000 with the creditor, and a maximum debt amount of KRW 763,736,00 with the creditor F, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 3-7, Evidence No. 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s request

A. The plaintiff, the only property of the non-party company, sold each of the instant real estate to the defendant. The defendant company is a director of the non-party company, the representative director of the non-party company, and the total amount of capital is limited to KRW 50,000,000,000, and the one-in-house director system is the one-in-house director system. Even if short, the defendant is merely the defendant, and it is merely the same as the non-party company, or the non-party company borrowed the name of the non-party company to evade debts, and thus, the non-party company held the title trust of each of the instant real estate to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff as the creditor of the non-party company, within the scope of unjust enrichment

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.01.13 2015가단209955

-대구지방법원 2015.09.15 2015가단18692

-대구지방법원 2020.01.22 2019나310038

-수원지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단526790