(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.09 2017나2007697

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 2017.06.09 2017나2007697

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and it is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance except for a partial modification or an additional statement as to this case. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5th through 10th " shall be deemed to have reached the agreement between the original defendant and the defendant on the receipt of the instant money, and it is reasonable to deem that the payment of the said money was not made free will of the plaintiff, in full view of the following: (a) the defendant asserted that there was an external audit at the time of the plaintiff's general meeting of shareholders in 2009, or was at issue of payment of remuneration to his father; or (b) it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant exceeded the shareholder's supervisory authority and is an unfair pressure or interference of management."

[Supplementary Decision] Even if the advisory contract of this case exists by the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff did not have any advisory act by the defendant, so the plaintiff must cancel the advisory contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's default. The defendant must return to the plaintiff the full amount of the money in this case as the restoration duty following cancellation

In addition, even if the advisory contract of this case exists, it is concluded by the defendant's pressure, that the advice provided by the defendant cannot be deemed to have been high level of difficulty or high level of effort, and that the advisory fee is lower than the advisory contract with the other company that the plaintiff suffered no profit due to the defendant's advice, and that the amount of this case is less than the advisory contract with the other company that the defendant concluded, the amount of the contract of this case should be reduced unfairly by at least 60%, and the defendant should return it as unjust enrichment

o Judgment

A. We examine the instant case, as seen earlier.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.12.28 2015나50924

-대구지방법원 2021.02.18 2020나309591

-서울고등법원 2020.02.10 2019나2042229

-서울고등법원 2014.10.16 2014누49233

-서울고등법원 2016.01.22 2015나9389