손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception of the
(except for the part regarding separate confirmed C). 2. Additional determination
A. Defendant’s assertion (1) Even if KRW 550 million, which the Plaintiff Company remitted to Nonparty Company, was offered as a bribe against the Defendant, C had the Defendant provide the said money to the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff Company on the part of the Plaintiff Company, as the agent or agent of the Plaintiff Company. As such, the Plaintiff Company was acting in bad faith as to the offering of bribe, and the Defendant did not deceiving the Plaintiff Company.
② Even if 550 million won, which the Plaintiff Company remitted to the Nonparty Company, was offered as a bribe against the Defendant, the Plaintiff Company, in collusion with the Defendant, offered a bribe to the Defendant. As such, the money offered by the Plaintiff Company constitutes illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, and thus, cannot be claimed against the Defendant for return.
B. We examine each of the above arguments by the defendant.
1) The Defendant’s assertion (1) is premised on the premise that C was in the position of the Plaintiff Company’s agent or agent at the time of the receipt of the said money. Around December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff Company, which received a loan of KRW 30 billion for a specified money trust in E, was in a situation in which it was bound to manage the funds at the request of C, which was the head of the E-Structure structure financing division, due to the foregoing loan relationship. However, at the time, C was an employee of E, but C was an employee of the Plaintiff Company, not an employee or major shareholder of the Plaintiff Company (at the time of the Plaintiff Company’s representative director and actual
The evidence submitted by the Defendant on the record alone is insufficient to readily conclude that C at that time was an agent or an agent delegated by the Plaintiff Company with the authority to represent for the management of funds.
The plaintiff's 100 million won out of the amount of 50 million won against the defendant and this is against the defendant.