대여금
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its payment from February 14, 2014 to September 13, 2017.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is a company aimed at designing and designing pollution prevention facilities, designing and selling apparatus manufacturing, etc., and the defendant was employed as the representative director of the plaintiff until July 16, 2012, and as the plaintiff's internal director until September 1, 2014.
The subjects of provisional payments among the presidents of accounts in 2012 of the Plaintiff are as follows:
B B B B B B B’s account in December 20, 2012, 11 cashier’s checks of KRW 740,000,000 were deposited in the Plaintiff’s new bank account in the Plaintiff’s name. The cash of KRW 230,000,000 was deposited in the substitute deposit, KRW 4,000,000 on December 27, 2012, and the cash of KRW 5,00,000 was deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account in the Plaintiff’s name; and KRW 30,000,000 was deposited in the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account on December 27, 2012; and KRW 30,000,000 was replaced on December 28, 2012.
On January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000,000 to the Defendant. On December 31, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff.
On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 to the Defendant.
On February 13, 2014 and March 13, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, respectively, content-certified mail demanding that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 1,00,000,000 from the Defendant as a provisional payment, but paid KRW 940,000,000 until September 17, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 60,000 to the Plaintiff.”
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings are asserted by the parties concerned. The plaintiff defendant, while holding office as the representative director of the plaintiff, has appropriated items for which evidence of payment was not prepared in the ledger of the plaintiff's account as 1,060,814,419 won (hereinafter the "provisional payment of this case") on January 2, 2012. The provisional payment of this case cannot be deemed legitimate expenditure. Thus, it constitutes unjust enrichment or tort.
The Defendant had the duty to return the instant provisional payment to the Plaintiff, and paid all of them on December 2012.
After January 16, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 to the Defendant.