(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.10.26 2017가단104905

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.10.26 2017가단104905

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 122,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 9, 2017 to October 26, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a person engaged in withdrawal business with the trade name C.

B. The plaintiff remitted to the defendant the total amount of KRW 42 million on November 17, 2008, and KRW 32 million on November 28, 2008. The defendant purchased the withdrawal machine with the above money and used it for the defendant's business.

C. The Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant KRW 30 million on April 14, 2010, KRW 29 million on April 29, 2010, KRW 80 million on June 3, 2010, and KRW 30 million on June 3, 2010.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the amount remitted to the defendant is 2% per month interest and sought the return of the loan.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the amount of remittance of 2008 year 200,000 won is the purchase price for the withdrawal period to enter the defendant's factory, and that the amount of remittance of 2010 80,000,000 won is the investment amount for MP3 business, so there is no obligation to return it to the defendant.

B. 1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to KRW 42 million that the Plaintiff remitted to the year 2008, the court below acknowledged the fact that the Defendant purchased the withdrawal machine from the Plaintiff with the money received from the Plaintiff and was incorporated into the Defendant’s assets, and that the Defendant made the Defendant lent the money to the employees of the Plaintiff and made the Defendant possess the factory operation. The above fact is that the Plaintiff was unable to exercise the right to dispose of the said withdrawal period, that the Defendant did not settle the profits of the said withdrawal period, and that the amount the Defendant claimed as the distribution of profits of the said withdrawal period appears to be the Plaintiff’s salary, it is reasonable to view that the above remittance amount is the Defendant’s request for borrowing funds to the Plaintiff in order to raise the purchase fund for the withdrawal period, and that the Plaintiff loaned the money to the Defendant upon acceptance of the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.04.25 2016가단8220 (1)

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.04.28 2013가단24003

-인천지방법원 2015.10.20 2015나50323

-수원지방법원평택지원 2016.06.16 2015가단43566

-인천지방법원 2015.02.12 2013가단73864