(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.05.24 2017가단111409

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.05.24 2017가단111409

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of transporting aggregate, etc., and was supplied with oil on credit from April 2014 to January 2015 by the Defendant, a retailer in the gas station, and paid KRW 450,956,810 to the Defendant as the oil price.

However, the oil supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is merely KRW 301,596,163, and the Defendant is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff on the ground that: (i) the difference was unjust enrichment of KRW 149,360,647 (=450,956,810 – KRW 301,596,163).

B. The fact that the difference between the oil price paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and the value of the oil supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff is 149,360,647 does not conflict between the parties.

However, in full view of the statements in Eul evidence 1 through Eul evidence 14 (the number of paper numbers is included; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the witness Eul's testimony, the plaintiff agreed to pay the oil price provided by the defendant to the defendant on behalf of the son on behalf of the son, and settled the above amount by the method of direct payment on behalf of the Borrower by deducting the oil price paid to the defendant by the son on behalf of the son on the son. The defendant issued a tax invoice for the oil price provided by the son on behalf of the son on behalf of the son on behalf of the son. The son issued the tax invoice for the son on the son's oil price. The sum of the issued amount is the amount equivalent to the above difference claimed by the plaintiff on unjust enrichment. According to the above facts, the defendant received the above difference as the oil price supplied by the plaintiff on behalf of the son, and the plaintiff paid it to the defendant as the amount deducted from the transportation charge paid to the son.

The plaintiff recognizes that there was an agreement between the defendant and the defendant on the payment of oil on credit between the owner of the land, but this is the defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원여주지원 2017.11.14 2017가단1303

-창원지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나57664

-대법원 1984. 7. 10. 선고 82누463 판결

-대구지방법원 2014.09.30 2014가단6111

-수원지방법원 2018.10.17 2017나85306