beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.01.08 2016가단218524

기타(금전)

Text

1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 22,400,000 for each Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from February 7, 2017 to January 8, 2019; and (c).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants related to the parties operate a lending company (hereinafter “instant lending company”) with the trade name “F” in Busan Nam-gu Office Office Dtel E, and G (work from March 2009 to November 201, 2016) was an employee of the said company.

On the other hand, the plaintiff worked for the above company from July 2010 to July 2015.

B. (1) The Plaintiff, while working for the instant lending business, lent money to the borrower under the loan brokerage of the said lending business entity, and continued to communicate with the borrower in connection with the remaining loan even after retirement. On April 2016, the Plaintiff decided to contact G and lend KRW 30 million to the agricultural bank account in the name of H (Defendant B) (hereinafter “instant account”) (hereinafter “instant account”). On April 27, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the agricultural bank account in the name of H (Defendant B) (hereinafter “Defendant B”), which is the business purpose account of the instant lending business entity, and the balance KRW 10 million to the balance to be refunded out of the money loaned as the broker of the instant lending business entity.

(2) On June 22, 2016, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 18 million out of the said money as KRW 30 million, and the remainder with G was decided to re-loan KRW 12 million.

(3) On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to lend additional loans of KRW 20 million to G and the instant account and remitted the said amount to the instant account.

(4) In addition to each of the above monetary transactions, the Plaintiff still remains a number of loans borrowed under the brokerage of the lending company of this case.

C. After the occurrence of brokerage accident, the Plaintiff visited the lending company of this case with the statement that “G commits an error by mistake” from other employees I of the lending company of this case. As a result of confirmation, the principal amount of KRW 12 million was already recovered, and KRW 20 million was not even used for the loan.

Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, A, 1 through 9.