beta
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.04.30 2013가단18256

보증금반환

Text

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

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2010, the Plaintiffs entered into a women’s tax credit service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), an operator of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan D apartment underground complex, with a deposit of KRW 25 million, the period from August 26, 201 to August 25, 201 (Plaintiff B) or from October 30 to October 29, 201 (Plaintiff A) and paid KRW 25 million to the Nonparty Company as each deposit.

B. After that, on May 4, 201, the Plaintiffs concluded an agreement with the non-party company to refund each of the above deposits by May 12, 201, on the grounds of the termination of the above service agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. However, the non-party company did not pay the above security deposit, and the plaintiff A filed a lawsuit against the above company to claim service deposit against the above company on December 23, 2011, which rendered a favorable judgment with the purport that "the non-party company shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 25 million and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from October 22, 201 to the date of full payment." The above judgment was finalized on February 1, 2012.

On the other hand, on January 17, 2012, Plaintiff B received a favorable judgment against the non-party company: “The non-party company shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million and the interest calculated at the rate of KRW 20 million per annum from November 1, 2011 to the date of full payment,” and the judgment on March 8, 2012 became final and conclusive.

【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, the facts alleged in this court, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the argument is that the non-party company takes the form of a legal entity only in external form, and in substance, the defendant is merely the defendant's personal company behind it.