(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.13 2013나59806

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.13 2013나59806

부당이득금반환

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 facts of the foundation are acknowledged by the defendant as being employed by the plaintiff company on November 1, 1999 and as being in charge of the accounting business around March 2006. The defendant, who was employed by the plaintiff company around October 2006, when being in charge of accounting business, etc. on or around September 2007, when being employed by the plaintiff company as being in charge of accounting business, etc. on or around October 2006, the facts of the withdrawal of the company around September 2007 do not conflict between the parties, or upon considering the overall purport of the arguments as a whole in the evidence No. 1-

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that: (a) from November 1, 1999 to March 2006, the defendant had a duty to claim overtime allowances and overtime work allowances and receive 5,028,448 won such as wages and retirement allowances by falsely claiming them from November 1, 199 to March 1, 2006; and (b) on April 13, 2006, 50,000 won from the Japanese bank account (C) in the name of the plaintiff company to the Korean bank account in the name of the defendant company, and transferred it to D; (c) on February 7, 2007, the plaintiff company has a duty to return it to the plaintiff; (d) the plaintiff company's head of the Tong company has a duty to claim payment of the total amount of KRW 3,50,000,000 to be withheld or deducted; and (d) the plaintiff's claim for payment of wage and salary income and the compensation for delay to be deducted.

B. 1) The defendant asserts to the effect that this part of the plaintiff company's claim was already dismissed in the previous suit, and that this part of the claim has res judicata effect.

In this regard, the plaintiff company filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the first claim for damages due to the illegal act and for the second claim for the return of unjust enrichment (this court 2008da454628), but all of the claims were dismissed.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2010.08.12 2008가단454628

-서울서부지방법원 2016.08.26 2016나1025

-서울서부지방법원 2016.01.19 2015가단11789

-대구지방법원 2015.09.04 2014가단35164

-서울남부지방법원 2013.11.07 2013고합328