(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.24 2017나2010938

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) 서울고등법원 2018.01.24 2017나2010938

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

Reasons

The scope of the court's trial is dismissed, and only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted only the conjunctive claim. Thus, the scope of the court's trial is limited to the part cited in the court of first instance among the conjunctive claim.

With respect to this part of the reasoning of the judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim, this court's reasoning is identical to that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for a partial addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In Part 3, "Corporate Bank Account (H)" shall be added to "Defendant's Account" (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant's Account") in Part 6.

From 3th to 13th to 3th to the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.

Although it is not recognized that the sales contract of this case was concluded in force between the original defendant asserted by the plaintiff as to the facts without dispute (based on recognition), Gap 2, 3, 7, Eul 1 through 7, and Eul 9 (including the number of each branch number), the whole purport of the pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings, since the defendant acquired the deposit claim equivalent to the above amount as the addressee's account as long as he received 600,000,000 won from the defendant's account, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the unjust enrichment of 60,000,000 won and delay damages.

Judgment

The reasoning for this part is that the court's reasoning is the same as the entry of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 6, 20, 8, and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance) except in the following cases:

“2) According to each of the instant sales contracts, the Plaintiff totaled KRW 524,00,000 from May 12, 2009 to August 7, 2009.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2014.12.17 2014나2013653

-서울고등법원 2014.12.03 2014나15653

-서울고등법원 2015.01.28 2014나2002844

-서울고등법원 2020.02.05 2018나2063199