(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가단120637

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가단120637

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming investment funds against C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with the Seoul Western District Court, and rendered a judgment on November 14, 2013 that “The Plaintiff shall jointly and severally with D to the Plaintiff KRW 17,708,472, and the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from April 12, 2013 to November 14, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(Seoul Western District Court 2013 Ghana31660).(b)

On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed with the Seoul Western District Court an order to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 140,000,000 and 20% interest per annum from March 16, 2013 to the date of full payment. The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

(Seoul Western District Court 2013j7301 Payment Order).

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking restitution of unjust enrichment with the Seoul Eastern District Court, but the judgment was rendered on September 8, 2016 that “the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed” and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015Da66019, the Plaintiff’s claim is premised on the Defendant’s unjust enrichment of KRW 591,187,657 from the Nonparty Company, or the Defendant’s obligation to return KRW 193,043,120 from the Nonparty Company, and on the premise that there is a difference between the amount remitted from the Nonparty Company and the amount remitted to the Nonparty Company, the Defendant does not have any ground to regard that the amount equivalent to the difference constitutes the Defendant’s unjust enrichment obligation, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant agreed to return KRW 193,043,120 out of the investment amount deposited by the Nonparty Company). [Reasons for recognition] There is no dispute on the grounds for recognition]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) the defendant received from the non-party company

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.02.20 2017가합40634

-서울서부지방법원 2018.11.28 2018가단222870

-서울서부지방법원 2015.07.23 2015가단13310

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.19 2015가단200225

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.24 2016가합32384