beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.12.06 2016나50624

구상금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a former spouse of E.

[Around July 6, 2011, a marriage report was made, and on April 11, 2016, a divorce was made (Yancheon District Court 2015ddan5801). (b)

The remaining students of E, while operating the PC (hereinafter “the PC bank in this case”) of the trade name, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay 30 million won guaranteed loans from the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (Loan Bank: Nonghyup Bank and the Loan in this case).

C. On September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff repaid the above loans of KRW 30 million.

Around that time, the Plaintiff reported the closure of the instant PC, and the Plaintiff’s business registration title of the said place of business was the Plaintiff from the time the PC was operated to the date of the said closure of business.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff, around October 2010, transferred the instant PC to C with the purchase price of KRW 50 million, and agreed to pay KRW 30 million out of the purchase price in lieu of the acquisition of the instant loan obligation, and the remainder amount is KRW 500,000 per month.

Since then, the Defendant acquired the instant PC from C on August 2012, and acquired the instant PC from C, instead of paying the price, KRW 30 million, and KRW 43.5 million, in total, of the amount of the instant loan obligations to the Plaintiff and the amount of the unpaid loan obligations to the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant did not repay the debt of the loan of this case, and the plaintiff subrogated for the loan of this case upon reporting the closure of business.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s PC was operated by the mother of E and E, not the Defendant, and the Defendant was merely operating the PC.

In addition, the defendant did not know about the loan of this case, and there is no agreement to acquire the loan of this case.

3. Determination

(a) Sheet slocks, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9 through 13.