beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.21 2016나3032

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. An objection to the trial;

Reasons

1. On June 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 65,00,000,000 calculated by deducting KRW 12,00,000, which the Defendant had already paid to the Plaintiff from the 18,50,000, as the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff the expenses incurred for the instant work.

As to this, the Defendant did not request the Plaintiff to perform the prior work on the instant construction, and the Plaintiff’s KRW 12,00,000 paid to the Plaintiff around November 201, 2013 constitutes a loan, and thus, the Defendant seeks payment of the said KRW 12,00,000 as a counterclaim and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. Each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 submitted by the Plaintiff on the claim of the principal lawsuit is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of the principal lawsuit is without merit.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 as to the counterclaims, the defendant may be found to have leased KRW 12,000,000 to the plaintiff on November 18, 2013. As such, the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the defendant 12,00,000 won and to pay the defendant 15% interest per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from August 31, 2016, the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the counterclaims in this case, which is the day of the final judgment of the court of the first instance, until December 21, 2016, which is the day of full payment, as well as the day of full payment.

As of November 22, 2013, there is no evidence to deem that the repayment period of the above loan between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was set at 5% per annum. Thus, the Defendant’s performance to the Plaintiff.