대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for a determination as to the Plaintiff’s addition of the allegations that the Plaintiff added to this court. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① the Defendant and F deceptioned the Plaintiff that they would distribute the profits derived from the execution of civil works by being awarded a contract for civil works among G Complex development projects.
The Defendant and F received KRW 700 million from the Plaintiff and acquired it by fraud.
The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 700 million and its delay damages with compensation for damages caused by such unlawful act.
② The Plaintiff is a de facto shareholder who owns 100% of D’s shares by borrowing the name of the Defendant, etc.
Although the defendant, which is a mere shareholder, was obligated to return the above shares to the plaintiff, he disposed of the above shares to E without the plaintiff's consent.
The plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 700 million corresponding to D's capital due to the above tort committed by the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to pay the damages equivalent to the above amount and the delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. On May 18, 2009, the Plaintiff deemed that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 940 million to the Defendant’s bank account under the pretext of capital to establish a general construction company on May 18, 2009.
However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant, in collusion with F, received a KRW 700 million from the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff to distribute the proceeds of civil works in collusion with F, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.
Rather, according to the evidence mentioned above, in particular, Eul evidence No. 9, F established D with the amount of KRW 700 million received from the plaintiff on May 19, 2009 as its capital, and the above D established C with eight companies, such as K Co., Ltd., and again established C with the foregoing eight companies, and entered into a contract for civil engineering works among G Complex development projects on December 31, 2010, and D as above.