(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2015.01.29 2012가합6733

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) 수원지방법원안양지원 2015.01.29 2012가합6733

부당이득금반환등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The facts of the basis are both Defendant D, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B, who are the children of both E, and the F is the Plaintiff’s children, and the Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant B.

【Ground for recognition】 There is no dispute

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant B and C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant C, who was entrusted by the Plaintiff with the management of the Seo-gu G-gu multi-family house owned by the Plaintiff, was engaged in the management of the said multi-family house on March 2007, H on the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant house”).

(2) On March 21, 2007 and April 16, 2007, Defendant C received KRW 10,000,000 as the above lease deposit. However, despite the fact that Defendant C paid the total amount of the above lease deposit to the Plaintiff, in collusion with Defendant B, the amount of the lease deposit of the instant house is KRW 5,00,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,000 out of the above lease deposit to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant settlement deposit”).

(2) Defendant C and C are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,00,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the total amount of damages arising from tort (Embezzlement) and damages for delay. The content of Defendant C and C’s assertion that Defendant C and C entered into a lease agreement with H and receive KRW 10,000,000 from H as alleged by the Plaintiff, and among them, paid to the Plaintiff KRW 5,00,000,000.

However, Defendant C used the remainder of KRW 5,000, i.e., the dispute amount of KRW 5,000 (hereinafter “I”), which was operated by the Plaintiff at the time of the settlement of the supply price of steel materials to ethyl Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”), and was subsequently ratified by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the assertion of embezzlement against Defendant C and B is unreasonable.

Even if Defendant C and B embezzled the source of dispute, as alleged by the Plaintiff, Defendant B.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.08 2013가단5121422

-의정부지방법원 2018.01.25 2016가단29227

-서울남부지방법원 2017.03.30 2016가합110698

-창원지방법원마산지원 2019.06.13 2019가단100434

-서울고등법원 2016.06.24 2015나29635