logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.16 2016가합111513
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts are companies engaged in the original manufacture, export and import business, and the manufacturing business of subsidiary materials for clothing (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant company”). The Plaintiff worked in the Defendant company from the second half of 2002 and served in the Defendant company as “C” after retirement from October 2009. On May 1, 2010, the Defendant company re-entered the Defendant company to take charge of the principal duties, etc. and then retired from office on April 2014, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A. Around April 2010, D, the representative of the Defendant Company, agreed that the Plaintiff would pay the full amount of the profit to the Plaintiff, if the Plaintiff worked for several years as the franchise belonging to the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff re-entered the Defendant Company in accordance with the agreement.

From May 1, 2010 to April 2014, the period for which the Plaintiff re-entered, the profit to the contracting parties was total of KRW 729,259,346. The Plaintiff received only KRW 388,284,00 from the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff returned KRW 127,00,000 to the Defendant Company’s request.

Therefore, the defendant company should return 467,975,346 won, which is the amount equivalent to the profit accrued as unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.

B. It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff entered in the evidence Nos. 1, 12, and 15 and the other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the profit on the condition that the Plaintiff would return to the Defendant company on April 2010, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to further examine.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow