logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.10.30 2020나42125
부당이득금반환
Text

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an employee working at the first E-Union branch in Busan Northern-gu (hereinafter “instant E-Union”).

Defendant B is between the F and the husband, and Defendant C is the father and wife of two persons.

B. Defendant B and F visited the instant E Association on February 25, 2019, and sought explanations from the Plaintiff on the deposited goods, and had a total of KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and, at the same time, laid down the guns of cash and checks.

The plaintiff set up the amount of cash and check with the coefficient, and entered into a fixed deposit contract of KRW 50,000,000 each in the future of the defendants.

C. However, Defendant B and F claimed that the sum totaled KRW 95,00,000,00 that Defendant B and F paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 100,000,000. However, according to the evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence No. 1, Defendant B and F included the Plaintiff’s KRW 50,000 KRW 490,100 KRW 1,762,000 KRW 10,000 KRW 10,000 and KRW 20,000 KRW 50,000 KRW 50,500 KRW 1,500 KRW 1,000 KRW 1,00,000 KRW 1,00 KRW 1,000,000 KRW 1,000 KRW 1,000,000 KRW 10,000 KRW 100,000 KRW 1,000, the evidence presented to the Plaintiff is difficult to view otherwise.

The Plaintiff, on February 25, 2019, found that the amount of the money 5,00,000 won from Defendant B and F was insufficient from the process of settling the deposit and withdrawal on the same day, and subsequently, did not pay money to the instant EM by withdrawing KRW 5,00,000 from the account under its own name and paying the said amount to the Defendants.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff did not have standing to file a claim for return of unjust enrichment merely because they were employees of the instant E association.

arrow