beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.23 2018나55432

약정금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 13,100,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from September 16, 2017.

Reasons

1. The following facts of recognition are recognized as either of the facts under dispute between the parties or as a whole together with the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3:

A. On September 24, 2012, the Defendant prepared an employment contract and an entrustment contract with the Plaintiff, respectively, and sold livestock products supplied by the Plaintiff at C points (Sengk, 1, 2 points) around that time.

B. Around August 2014, the Defendant terminated the contractual relationship with the Plaintiff, and around August 27, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 14.5 million each month from November 2014 to KRW 1.00,000,000 to the Plaintiff as “the certificate of borrowing” (hereinafter referred to as “the certificate of borrowing”).

was prepared and proposed.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff supplied livestock products on credit from the Plaintiff according to the consignment contract with the Plaintiff and sold them, and settled accounts of the outstanding amount against the Plaintiff at the end of each month. At the time of the termination of the consignment contract, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff was about KRW 14.5 million, and the Defendant prepared and prepared the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 13.1 million, which deducted the Plaintiff from the amount of KRW 1.4.5 million already received from the Defendant (= KRW 1.4.5 million - 1.4 million), and damages for delay.

B. The defendant merely entered into an employment contract that is not an entrustment contract with the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant provided labor and received wages in return for the provision of labor. Since the plaintiff was supplied with the livestock products on credit from the plaintiff and did not settle the accounts with the plaintiff, the defendant's obligation to pay the outstanding amount claimed by the plaintiff is merely limited to the plaintiff's business losses. The plaintiff is liable for the outstanding amount to the defendant at the time of the termination of the employment contract with the defendant, and the defendant is not liable for the payment of the borrowed amount.