logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.08.24 2018나165
부당이득금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Without any basis, C, which operated the Plaintiff’s assertion company, has the passbook and seal of the Plaintiff company, remitted KRW 16.5 million from the Plaintiff company’s account to the Defendant’s account, which is the seat of C. It appears that C embezzled the Plaintiff company’s funds and paid it to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant, as unjust enrichment, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff company 16.5 million won and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery date of the payment order of this case to the day of complete payment.

B. The Defendant alleged that C had a loan claim of KRW 26.2 million, and C had a loan claim of KRW 200 million with the Plaintiff Company.

C In order to receive KRW 16.5 million from the Plaintiff Company to pay KRW 16.5 million out of the loans of KRW 200 million, at the same time, the Plaintiff Company transferred KRW 16.5 million directly from the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant’s account without going through C’s account.

Therefore, the 16.5 million won deposited from the company of the plaintiff to the defendant account cannot be regarded as unjust enrichment.

2. The determination system imposes an obligation to return money on a benefiting person based on the principle of fairness and justice in the event that the benefiting person's financial gain lacks legal cause. In the event that the debtor uses the money obtained from the victim to repay his/her obligation to his/her creditor, it is reasonable to deem that the creditor's pecuniary gain has a legal cause in relation to the victim, unless there is any bad faith or gross negligence as to the fact that the money was acquired by the defrauded in receiving the payment (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5373, 53740, Mar. 13, 2008). Such legal principle applies to the debtor's repayment of the money embezzled by the victim against his/her creditor.

arrow