대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.
1. Since only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance which partly accepted the plaintiff's claim within the scope of adjudication in this Court, only the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to adjudication
2. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 6, 2012, upon introduction by C, the Plaintiff and the Defendant permitted the Defendant to use without compensation all the business of the EPG charging station (hereinafter “instant filling station”) on the land outside D and six parcels at the time of sowing, and the Defendant agreed to return the instant filling station at any time upon the Plaintiff’s request.
B. From July 16, 2012, the Defendant operated the instant charging station, but on August 25, 2012, the business was suspended due to the dispute with C, which operated the instant charging station. At that time, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return relevant documents, such as business registration and permission for liquefied petroleum gas filling business, and the instant charging station.
C. On August 23, 2012, the Defendant demanded the settlement of the gas prices purchased on August 23, 2012, including gas charges, electricity charges, telephone charges, security guard charges, tax repair charges, disposal cards, back signboards, inspection fees, and KRW 8,00,00,00, which were brought by C. On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 33,976,694.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 8, 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
3. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The gist of the cause of the claim was that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return relevant documents, such as business registration and permission for liquefied petroleum gas filling business, and the instant filling station in order to proceed with individual rehabilitation procedures.
Although the Defendant knew of the aforementioned circumstances, on August 25, 2012, he/she was able to prevent the Plaintiff from running the filling station business in this case, thereby hindering the Plaintiff’s individual rehabilitation procedures.
In such a situation, the defendant is naturally liable to the plaintiff for expenses incurred in the course of the instant charging station operation.