logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.11.01 2017가단32806
부당이득금
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' assertion (the selective claim) without any grounds, the defendant receives 200,000 won from the plaintiffs' salary to the association's subscription fee, 20,000 won for each month's salary, 10,000 won, and 10,000 won if there is a

The defendant has a duty to return the same amount of money to the plaintiffs without any legal ground, as the defendant gains a significant benefit from each amount of money, and thereby has suffered the same loss.

The defendant embezzled the above-mentioned money without using it for a legitimate purpose.

The defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiffs for damages caused by the tort.

The plaintiffs seek payment of KRW 10,100,000 for each claim, and damages for delay, from among the amount brought by the defendant from the plaintiffs' benefits.

2. Selective consolidation of the claim for determination as to the legitimacy of a lawsuit is a combination of claims that seek benefits to the same purport or seek the same formative effect based on several composition rights that are compatible with the Plaintiff’s multiple concurrent claims, under the condition that a certain claim will be accepted, and as such, several claims that are logically incompatible are not allowed for selective consolidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Du6773, Apr. 24, 2014; 81Meu120, Jul. 13, 1982). Meanwhile, in order to establish embezzlement, the Defendant must be in a custodian’s position based on a consignment relationship. The assertion that the Defendant’s receipt of benefits by the Plaintiffs did not have any legal grounds and the Defendant’s claim premised on the entrustment relationship with the Plaintiffs cannot be compatible with each other.

The plaintiffs arranged that the relationship between the claim for return of unjust enrichment and the claim for damages should be clarified as selective claims, and even though they ordered again at the first date for pleading, they ordered again to arrange the claims.

arrow