beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.04.11 2018나2028035

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

Reasons

The reasons for this case are as follows. The court of the first instance, which cited the first instance judgment, cited “the Defendant” to the fourth side of the first instance judgment as “the deposit account in the name of E company”; and except for the second preliminary claim added by the Plaintiff in this court as follows, the reasons for the first instance judgment are as follows. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The court below's findings and determination on the plaintiff's primary claim and the preliminary claim are just, and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff). The defendant C, as of July 2006, by deceiving the plaintiff, "F is under investigation for the utilization of public funds, so it is necessary to collect money," thereby deceiving the plaintiff, thereby taking the plaintiff into account KRW 530,00,000 from the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant C is liable for tort. Since the above acts of the defendant C are objectively related to the inspection in external form as well as the work of inspection, the defendant B, to which the E company belongs, bears the corporation's tort liability or the employer's liability pursuant to Article 35 (1) or 756 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 530,000,000, which is equivalent to the above money as damages, and damages for delay.

Judgment

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 25 and witness H of the trial, the plaintiff and the plaintiff, as well as Eul's testimony, stated to the effect that "F and the plaintiff et al. embezzled the E company's property in collusion on or around August 2006, the investigation is conducted by the investigative agency about the suspected facts that "F and the plaintiff et al. embezzled the company's property", and 530,000,000 of the F's sale price was temporarily preserved by the plaintiff et al., and the remaining 230,000,000 won was prepared to be returned at any time," and the defendant et al. before the investigation is conducted by the plaintiff et al.