beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.08 2014가합3479

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The parties’ relevant Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company established on December 12, 1990 for the purpose of leasing real estate, etc., and the Plaintiff was working as the representative director of the Defendant Company until January 5, 2012. The Defendant C, who is the Plaintiff, is working as a director or auditor from March 16, 200 to May 25, 2012.

B. The ownership relationship of the instant real property 1) The Nam-gu Pohang-gu Do Forest land 9-Nowh 8-9 (hereinafter “D land”).

On May 2, 1974, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff on February 20, 2007, and on February 20, 2007, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of E. 2) On March 7, 1973, the Nam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City 5-F Forest land No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as the "F land") was completed in the name of the plaintiff on March 7, 1973, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of G, the plaintiff's birth.

3) On October 16, 1978, the Nam-gu Ho-gu H 626.3 square meters of land at port was completed under the Plaintiff’s mother-child I’s name on October 16, 1978, and three buildings located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant H real estate”).

A) On January 12, 1993, the registration of ownership preservation was completed under the Plaintiff’s name, and the instant H real estate was completed on November 3, 2005 to J on November 3, 2005. 【Ground for Recognition】 The fact that there was no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including a serial number, and the purport of the whole pleadings, if any).

2. On January 2005, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion delegated most of the Defendant Company’s work to Defendant C because it is not free to move, after working at the strokes.

During that period, Defendant C believed the end of the end of Defendant C, which requires funds for debt repayment, such as the construction cost of the K building, and left Defendant C with the Plaintiff’s seal impression and a certificate of personal seal for disposal of real estate owned by the Plaintiff.

However, since the Defendants arbitrarily embezzled or misappropriated the proceeds from the disposal of real estate owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendants are unable to clarify the place of use, etc.