구상금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is all revoked.
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion ① the Defendants agreed to pay taxes, such as the value-added tax, arising from the construction of the instant building on behalf of the Plaintiff and the transfer of ownership in the Defendant Company.
Nevertheless, on April 2016, the Defendants did not pay the value-added tax following the transfer of ownership of the said building, and the sum of the value-added tax, additional tax, and additional dues imposed on the Plaintiff as of April 2016, exceeds KRW 117,162,500.
Meanwhile, the amount of value-added tax not paid by the Defendants is KRW 23,937,201 calculated by subtracting the Plaintiff’s already paid KRW 32,70,000 from KRW 56,637,201 appropriated for the Plaintiff’s delinquent national tax (= KRW 56,637,201 – KRW 32,70,000).
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 93,225,299 (=17,162,500 - 23,937,201) and damages for delay.
② The Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 150 million from the Busan Bank as collateral for real estate owned by the Plaintiff and paid the Defendants. The Defendants agreed to directly repay the above loan obligations.
However, due to the Defendants’ failure to repay the above loans, the above real estate was sold in the auction procedure of real estate as requested by Busan Bank, and the Busan Bank received dividends of KRW 151,135,014 as the principal and interest of loans.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 151,135,014 and the damages for delay.
B. The main point of the Defendants’ assertion is that there was no agreement that the Defendants would return and pay the value-added tax for the sale of the instant building on behalf of the Plaintiff, or that they received a comprehensive delegation of authority therefor from the Plaintiff.