beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the statement in the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not pay the delinquent charges of this case, but did not pay the delinquent charges, and due to the Defendant’s intimidation and unlawful and unreasonable disposition of processed water, the Defendant paid the delinquent charges for a period of four days. In fact, the Defendant paid the delinquent charges to the Plaintiff for losses incurred due to the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct its business for four days.
Ultimately, since the above act of substitute payment was made by the defendant's coercion, it is revoked, and accordingly, sought a refund of KRW 10,308,850, which is unjust enrichment to the defendant, and sought compensation of KRW 24,50,000, which is losses due to the failure to conduct business for four days due to such unlawful act, and the conjunctive claim for the payment of the above total amount due to the tort by coercion.
3. The judgment was examined. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not consider that the plaintiff succeeded to the duty to pay the water rate B, but the plaintiff can pay the delinquent charges to a third party interested by the water supply municipal ordinance, etc. and that the payment of the delinquent charges does not constitute unjust enrichment. The Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu3476 decided April 21, 201 concerning the succession to the obligation to pay the tax mentioned by the plaintiff is inappropriate to be invoked in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant forced the plaintiff to pay the water rate or caused coercion to pay the water rate to the plaintiff. Accordingly, this part of the court's reasoning should be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance.
4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.