logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가단4402
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the lease of the first floor (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) among the building located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) with the Defendant’s husband, with KRW 120,00,000, monthly rent 4,500,000 (hereinafter “instant building”). Around that time, the Plaintiff was transferred the instant store and operated a restaurant business until now.

After that, the defendant inherited the building of this case independently due to the death of C.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant, one of its fraud, was engaged in brecing business in the name of “F” at the instant store, and demanded KRW 70,000,000 as premium. On December 11, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for acquisition of the right to pay KRW 70,000,000 as premium between E and E by January 5, 2007, and accordingly, paid KRW 70,000 to E.

However, at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, E became aware that it did not run any business at the instant store.

Ultimately, the defendant, in collusion with E, deceivings the plaintiff and defrauds the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000, and shall pay the plaintiff 70,000,000 and the delay damages due to the compensation for damages or the return of unjust enrichment arising from the tort.

B. In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the fact that the instant lease contract was drafted as of December 11, 2006, as alleged by the Plaintiff, can be acknowledged as having been asserted by the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement.

(1) However, while operating the chemical "G" at the instant store for more than 10 years, the deceased and the deceased operated the task of "F" for two or three years, and thereafter, the deceased and the deceased operated the "G".

arrow