손해배상(기)
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.
1. Basic facts
A. From around 2000, the Defendant began transactions for the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s products and had the Plaintiff keep gold bars owned by the Plaintiff.
B. Around April 21, 2012, the transaction between the original and the Defendant was terminated, and the Defendant demanded the return of the gold punishment in custody of the Plaintiff and returned the gold punishment to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff did not return the gold punishment in question to the Defendant, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff was not able to return the smell at night, (b) night, (c) night, (d) fluorcium, and (e) fluorcium, and (c) fluorcium (hereinafter “each gold punishment in this case”) and demanded the Defendant to return the gold punishment in this case additionally.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s failure to return each of the instant monetary penalties constitutes embezzlement. The Prosecutor accepted the Defendant’s appeal against the loss of each of the instant monetary penalties and did not dispose of them at will, and rendered a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on November 29, 2012 (Evidence of Evidence Incompetence).
(hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive a refund of each of the instant gold penalties from the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted for the payment of the penalty of KRW 35,000,000 and damages for delay, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff had already returned the penalty of KRW 35,00,00 to the Plaintiff on April 201, while the Defendant was a person who did not return the remainder of the gold penalty of the instant gold, excluding the gold penalty, but did not return the gold penalty to the Plaintiff on the part of the Defendant.
B. 1) First of all, as to whether the Defendant had actually failed to return the gold set in relation to the gold set that the Defendant asserted, according to the health class, Gap evidence No. 2-2 and 3, the Defendant returned part of the gold set in his custody around April 201 to the Plaintiff (Article 2-2 of the Evidence No. 2 of the Defendant).