A. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) entered into a contract for the supply of Mesological services (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff was requested by C to transmit text messages (SP/LS/M) and would receive communications fees within the end of the month following the transmission of text messages (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. From November 2016 to December 201, 2016, the Plaintiff sent text messages at C’s request. On November 2016, 2016, the communications fee was KRW 253,030,932, and the communications fee was KRW 368,196,604.

C. On January 2, 2017, the Defendant, a director of C, remitted KRW 47,035,94 to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant. On February 6, 2017, the Defendant deposited the same amount to C account and returned the same amount again on the same day. On March 2, 2017, the Defendant deposited the same amount to C account, again, deposited the same amount to C account and used it individually by withdrawing the same amount on the same day.

The Defendant was indicted for evading compulsory execution due to the above act of withdrawing money (hereinafter “the act of withdrawing money in this case”), and was convicted of imprisonment with prison labor for August 1, 2019 and two years of suspended execution, and became final and conclusive around that time.

E. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 on January 31, 2017, and KRW 80,000,000 on February 6, 2017, and KRW 30,000,00 on March 2, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendant committed the act of withdrawing the instant gold on January 2, 2017, thereby making it impossible or difficult for the Plaintiff to execute and satisfy the claim for communications fee against C, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s claim. This constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the withdrawal of this case.