logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.24 2015가단31847
부당이득금반환
Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The husband D of the Plaintiff and the husband of the Plaintiff B were introduced by the Defendant who runs real estate brokerage business from F going in the same workplace.

The Defendant recommended D and E to make an investment by stating to the effect that “The G area in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which is a neighboring Seoul, will be developed at the end of 2007, with the history of the entire Seoul Metropolitan area of the entire Seoul Metropolitan area, will be able to receive the right to sell commercial buildings later by compensating for development later,” in advance.

B. Accordingly, D and E, as recommended by the Defendant, intended to purchase KRW 30,00,00 each of the plastic houses (hereinafter “instant plastic houses”) installed on the ground of 2787m2 in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”). On March 2, 2007, D transferred KRW 30,000 to the Defendant’s account in the name of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant’s account, respectively.

At the time, the Defendant did not prepare a sales contract on the instant vinyl between D, E, and I, who is the owner of the instant vinyl, and issued the goods protocol indicating the location of the vinyl to any other place than the instant land.

C. On March 3, 2007, the following day, the Defendant asserted that KRW 7 million was deducted from the costs required to grow mushrooms in a vinyl (the Defendant claimed that each of 7 million won was deducted from the costs required to grow mushrooms in a vinyl. In fact, in the instant vinyl, the Defendant argued that he was an employee of J (the Defendant asserted that he was an employee of J) by indicating the name of the Plaintiffs and remitting KRW 23 million to the account of J (the Defendant asserted that he was an employee of J).

In addition, the defendant paid KRW 2 million in total to F on the same day as the case of introducing D and E to F on the same day.

On the other hand, the defendant received 30 million won from J on the same day.

D The defendant on March 12, 2007 is a brokerage commission for the above sale.

arrow