보증금반환
1. Defendant B’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 1, 2013 to September 7, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the business of distributing by-products of livestock (e.g., head of pigs, internal organs, etc.). Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A”) is a company that slaughters the raw milk, and Defendant B is supplied with the raw milk from livestock farmers and requested Defendant A to slaughter, thereby selling meat and by-products for slaughter.
B. From May 16, 201 to July 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff supplied by-products from the raw money, which was requested to slaughter, to the Defendant A. Since D was no longer able to supply the raw money to the Defendant A, the Plaintiff was supplied by-products from the raw money supplied by Defendant B to the Defendant during the period from November 22, 2011 to April 20, 201. The amount of by-products was transferred from November 22, 2011 to the Defendant’s account.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the Defendant A on the by-products from the livestock industry, and paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant A on behalf of the Plaintiff. Since the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated, the Defendant A is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant A agreed to return the deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant A was obligated to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement. (2) When the Defendant A was unable to supply the by-products to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered into a by-products supply contract with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant A paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant B on behalf of the Plaintiff, thereby the Plaintiff paid the deposit amount of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant B concurrently acquired the obligation to return the deposit amount to the Plaintiff, and the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B was terminated.