(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.10.18 2016나9387 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2018.10.18 2016나9387

부당이득금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the head office of the Sissi household under the name of the Plaintiff’s wife C and registered its business, and thereafter, operated the Sissi household agency by the method of their own business and calculation, as to KRW 50,000,000, which the Plaintiff shall pay to the head office of the Sissi household, and the Defendant shall bear KRW 30,000,000, respectively, and the Plaintiff agreed to allow the Defendant, a bad credit holder, to use the account in the name of C (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. Since then C entered into an agency contract with the head office of the Sissi household. Under the instant agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to the head office of the Sissi household, and the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 to the head office of the Sissi household on July 22, 2011.

C. Around November 2013, the Plaintiff agreed not to operate a supers household agency any longer between the Defendant and the Defendant.

Even though the Defendant received KRW 50,000,000 from the head office of the Spans household head office around November 2013, which agreed not to operate the agency as above between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, it did not refund KRW 20,000,000 that the Plaintiff assumed to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the instant claim 1: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to operate a supers household agency with their own businesses and their respective calculation methods; (b) the Defendant failed to pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff with the ability to perform household construction; and (c) requested the execution.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, performed construction costs of KRW 24,824,00 in total over 160,000, the Defendant did not pay construction costs to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant incurred damages to the Plaintiff by unjust enrichment without any legal cause.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.01.24 2016고단1413

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.07.22 2014고단2500

-대전지방법원 2017.09.22 2017고정1092

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2017.04.26 2016고단613

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.09.01 2016가단3395