logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.15 2014나2024912
부당이득금 반환
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Defendant Co., Ltd. in the judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. 2.B.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases of using a claim as described below, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

[Supplementary Use]

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment are that the defendant paid 165,00,000 won to Vietnam information technology and 50,000,000 won to A in accordance with the orders of Vietnam Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Berne Information Technology") and that the defendant's gain is 74,00,000 won (=319,00,000,000 - 165,000,000 - 50,000,000 won - 30,000,000 won) within the scope of the profit. Thus, the defendant's gain is merely 74,000,000 won (=319,000,000 won - 30,000,000 won).

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5,00,000 won on February 13, 2013, and 165,000,000 won on March 28, 2013, and paid KRW 50,000,00 to A on March 28, 2013.

However, in a case where a person gains profits from another person’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes damage to another person, such profits shall be presumed to exist, regardless of whether the person who acquired such profits have consumed the profits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da19966, Jun. 26, 2008). Thus, the Defendant’s actual profits are merely KRW 74,00,000,000, and thus, the Plaintiff shall not be held liable to return such profits to the extent of the Plaintiff.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

However, in the judgment of the first instance court, the "Defendant M&C Information Industry" is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "Defendant M&C Information Industry", and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow