Fraudulent Gains;

The Defendant is liable to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, since the Nonparty received the refund of value-added tax from the account he was in possession of the Plaintiff without any legal grounds.

Article 746 of the Civil Act

Daejeon High Court 2016-Annex-102065 ( December 20, 2017)

Since it seems that from the time of the payment of the refund, it was known that there was no legal ground for such payment.

The defendant, who is a beneficiary of unjust enrichment equivalent to the refund amount of this case, 359,056,364 won and its amount

- 5-

As to the above refund payment date, from March 9, 2015 to April 25, 2016, the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

Until the date of full payment, etc., 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act, and 5% from the next day to the day of full payment.

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Special Act on Special Cases.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) Determination as to the assertion that the procedure for refund of value-added tax has been terminated between the Plaintiff and Aa

As seen above, the actual owner of the instant refund paid by the Plaintiff shall be the Defendant.

As such, aa is premised on the receipt of a refund of this case by aa.

This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit to further examine.

2) The defendant's assertion that he obtained prior approval from Aa on the receipt of the refund of this case

Determination on the Grounds for Appeal

Written evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 1, 5, 6, and 7 shall be written by the Defendant alone.

It is recognized that the authority to receive the instant refund was granted by the Plaintiff.

In short, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Determination as to the assertion of performance under Article 472 of the Civil Act

A) Article 472 of the Civil Code provides that a performance to a person who is not entitled to receive the performance shall be made by the obligee.

The provision provides that the debtor shall have the effect to the extent of the claim.

such payments shall apply in the event that payments are made to the receiver, even though the payments are not made by such receiver.

(a) with the intent of the debtor (the plaintiff) to repay to the creditor (a), as the case may be;

If performance is made by mistake to the beneficiary of performance, there is no room to apply the above provision.

B) Even if the above provision applies to this case, the Plaintiff’s refund of this case

upon repayment to the defendant who is not entitled to receive payment, the Corporation shall pay the defendant by aa

- - Other

in order to terminate all or part of the payment obligation, first of all, against the defendant Aa

The scope and amount of the obligation to pay the construction cost must be specified, and only after that, the plaintiff

of the money paid by Aa, which has been derived from the discharge of the obligation by Aa, can be determined as much as the benefits have been incurred.

(a) The evidence submitted by the defendant alone that the defendant's obligation to pay the construction cost against the defendant

The defendant's receipt of the refund money of this case has earned aaa profit for a long time.

Since the defendant's assertion on this part is not known at all, the defendant's assertion on this part is not justified.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's primary claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(2) The court shall render a judgment (or, in the case of a preliminary claim, if the primary claim against the defendant is

(b).

Korea

aa

November 29, 2017

December 20, 2017

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2014, the Defendant uses aa and Sejong Special Self-Governing City vvv, the representative of B industry development, for Baa and Sejong Special Self-Governing City v.

The construction cost of 11,800,000,000 for 'D Complex Facilities Construction Project' located in two parcels of land

The contract(hereinafter referred to as "the contract of this case") was entered into.

B. As to the payment of the construction price under aa on August 14, 2014 and the instant contract

aa after opening a joint passbook between the two persons, the management of the passbook and seal to the defendant by the defendant

and after the settlement of the construction cost, the defendant will return the passbook and seal to Aa.

A.AA. Pursuant to the above arrangement, the Nonghyup Bank Account in the name of the principal on the same day (Account Number 35)

1-0731-8507-03 of the head of the Tong, "transaction books or seals" column, aa and the Gu whose representative director is the defendant

The seal of the way is affixed, hereinafter referred to as "the account of this case") shall be opened, and the head of the Tong shall be the head of the Tong.

The stamp was delivered to the defendant.

(c) Aa is the second period of 2014 of the development of BB industry on January 25, 2015 (the taxable period of 2 years) around January 25, 2015.

Value-added tax shall be refunded 359,28 when filing a return on value-added tax from July 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014

4,720 won (hereinafter referred to as "the refund of this case") was reported for early refund.

- 3-

D. e, the representative of fff Co., Ltd., the Defendant’s subcontractor, is the Defendant’s refund of this case

For the purpose of receiving the payment and paying the unpaid construction cost tofff, 201

5. Around March 3, 200, he asked c tax office about the refund of this case, and a copy of the passbook by the staff in charge.

No value-added tax shall be refunded because it has not been submitted. e is the same day.

The defendant's employee shall have a copy of the passbook in the name of a Aa to the c tax office.

was sent to the Corporation.

E. On March 9, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 359,284,720 of the instant refund to the instant account.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, 5, 6

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary cause of the claim

The defendant is legally responsible for the possession and management of the Account in the name of Aaa in this case.

Without being paid KRW 359,284,720 to the above account of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was paid with KRW 359,284,720.

In addition, the above money is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment.

2) Preliminary Claim Grounds

The defendant deceivings the plaintiff even though he is not a value-added tax, and thereby inducing the plaintiff to refund the case 359,28

Since acquiring 4,720 won by fraud, the plaintiff shall be paid the above money as compensation for tort to the plaintiff.

have obligations.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff paid the instant refund money to the instant account in the name of Aa.

- 4-

Upon termination of the procedure for refund of value-added tax between Aa and the Defendant’s use of the said money

The issue is between Aa and Aa, not the defendant's unjust advantage from the plaintiff.

2) The defendant received the refund of this case from the plaintiff with prior consent from Aaa.

As such, aaa’s receipt and use of the refund money of this case from the Plaintiff was the case.

The same shall apply to the payment of a refund and the payment of construction price to the defendant.

3) Even if the Plaintiff paid the instant refund to the Defendant, such payment shall be made.

Since aa's obligation to pay the construction price to the defendant has been paid in full, Article 472 of the Civil Code

Pursuant to this section, the payment of the refund shall be deemed to be effective as a repayment to Aa.

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the primary cause of the claim

, even if the transfer to the account holder is a transfer, the holder of the account shall gain a substantial amount of the money.

in order to hold that the account holder may actually control the money; and

It is necessary to acknowledge the circumstances that can be seen as a person who actually benefits (Supreme Court Decision 209 September 8, 2011).

See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da37325, 37332 decided Feb. 21, 200

At the time when the defendant remitted the refund 359,284,720 won to the account of this case, the head of the Tong in the account of this case

In substance, the account of this case was occupied and managed while keeping the seal, and the refund money of this case was refunded.

It is reasonable to view that the actual person to whom it belongs is the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant who is not a value-added tax taxpayer is not a value-added tax taxpayer.

Considering a considerable amount of profit and the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the equivalent amount, the defendant shall be deemed to have suffered a loss.