(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.01.20 2015나6504 | 리걸엔진

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 2016.01.20 2015나6504

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order seeking the above payment order against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had KRW 19,730,250 of material cost claim 19,730,000.

B. On October 23, 2013, the above court issued a payment order: “The debtor shall pay to the creditor KRW 19,730,250, and 5% per annum from July 22, 2013 to the date on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served, and 33,780 won per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”); and around that time, the instant payment order became final and conclusive.

C. The Defendant, based on the original copy of the instant payment order, received the claim for the construction cost against the Plaintiff Gohap-gun under the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Branching 2013TTT1204, and accordingly collected KRW 11,129,770 from Gohap-gun around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not bear the obligation to pay the goods against the defendant because it was not supplied with the goods by the defendant, and the defendant applied for the payment order in this case with the claim for the material price claim for tin General Construction Co., Ltd., which is the same trade name as that of the plaintiff's transfer, and thus, it should be returned to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment acquired without any legal ground.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the construction of tin comprehensive corporation and the plaintiff corporation is the same company as the corporate body, such as the representative director is the same and the office is located in the same building in Kim Jong-dong, the amount collected by the defendant does not constitute unjust enrichment.

B. Determination Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and B

유사 판례

-창원지방법원진주지원 2017.11.07 2017가단5361

-의정부지방법원고양지원파주시법원 2017.06.09 2016가단146

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.07.03 2017가단110760

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.02.08 2017가단34833

-수원지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나26511