beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Each of the respective arguments asserted as stated in the separate sheet as the cause of the claim in this case (the plaintiff did not comply with the order to prepare for tin as of March 19, 2015 by the court ordering to specify the cause of the claim more clearly, and the cause of the plaintiff's claim is somewhat unclear, and the cause of the claim is still unclear). Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff asserted the above cause of the claim and the claim for return of unjust enrichment, which the plaintiff raised, has already expired.
2. The judgment of this Court
A. First, there is no evidence to acknowledge this point by citing that the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant B and C committed a joint tort among the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's assertion that it had been repeatedly "brut" was included. Rather, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the purport that the defendant B and C embezzled a total of 60 million won, but the fact that the above defendants received a disposition of non-guilty suspicion at the Sung-nam branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office on November 3, 2009 is not a dispute between the parties, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant would pay a joint tort is not acceptable.
B. Next, it is insufficient to examine the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment as to the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment, and there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendants obtained “interest without any legal ground” in relation to the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff’s claim, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is room to regard the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment as a commercial claim, and the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment seems to have been filed immediately after the lapse of five years from the time when the Plaintiff was actually able to exercise this claim. Accordingly, the Defendants’ preliminary claim for the extinguishment of prescription is legitimate. Thus, the Plaintiff’
3. Accordingly, we cannot accept all of the Plaintiff’s respective claims of this case.