사취금반환
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 this case is as follows, except for the defendant’s additional determination as to the assertion added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant asserts that since the judgment of the court of first instance deposited KRW 45.6 million for the plaintiff, it should be deducted from the agreed amount.
According to the evidence No. 14, the defendant deposited KRW 45,60,000 for damages to the plaintiff who is the victim in relation to the criminal case that he/she was the defendant after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered.
However, even if the defendant deposited the amount cited by the judgment of the court of first instance after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, it shall be deemed that the defendant deposited the amount to be exempted from a compulsory execution based on a provisional execution attached to the judgment of first instance, and it shall be deemed that the defendant voluntarily provided the plaintiff with a debt equivalent to the amount of the above money, but it shall not be deemed that the payment was deposited due to the plaintiff's failure to receive it. Thus,
(see Supreme Court Decision 94Da22446, Nov. 11, 1994). In addition, in order to be effective a deposit for repayment, the payment must be provided for the full repayment of the obligation and deposited for the full amount of the obligation, and the deposit for part of the obligation does not take effect as to that part of the obligation. However, if the obligee expresses his/her intention of reservation that the deposit be appropriated for part of the obligation, and receives it, the deposit shall be appropriated for the repayment of part of the obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da30650, Aug. 20, 2014). The amount deposited by the Defendant is less than the amount of the agreed amount recognized earlier, and the Plaintiff’s deposit is part of the obligation.