logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.30 2016나6077
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C is the representative director of E (hereinafter “E”) established for the purpose of mechanical facility construction business, etc., and the Defendant was the vice president of the above company, and D was working as the regular director of the above company, and was in charge of mechanical facility construction business.

(b) C/D is a form of punishment, and C as the president of E, approved a series of funds enforcement by holding the final decision making authority on the enforcement of the funds.

C. On June 2012, E was awarded a subcontract for the part of F-built machinery and equipment construction among F-built construction by a foreign currency public corporation (hereinafter “foreign currency public corporation”).

Since then, E entered into a final contract with the Plaintiff at least 69,960,000 won (hereinafter “instant contract”) around January 16, 2013, by requesting the Plaintiff to produce and install industrial cargo pumps, skid storage tanks, etc. among the above construction works, through multiple changes in design and quantity. Since then, the Plaintiff did not receive the said payment from E or E. B.

E. Accordingly, at the time of the investigation, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against D et al., who had discussed the terms and conditions of payment with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was charged with fraud in the investigation process.

F. In the above fraud, etc., the Gwangju District Court rendered a false statement that “E, as to D and C, did not pay part of the price to the Plaintiff even in the previous transaction with the Plaintiff, G, the actual operator of the Plaintiff, should take the delivery of the goods to E, and D, that “D, the original contractor, is not aware that it would be able to directly pay the price to the Plaintiff, and that it would make and deliver the goods to the Plaintiff.”

However, in fact, E did not submit a statement of use of advance payment to E who received approximately KRW 30% of the total construction amount as advance payment at the time of entering into a contract with E-U.S. co-operation and agreed from E-U.S. around December 2012 to Jan. 2013.

arrow