beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.05.03 2017가합105126

기타(금전)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 1, 2016 to May 3, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Upon the Defendant’s introduction, the Plaintiff deposited money in the securities account under the Plaintiff’s name from June 2015, and granted a third party the right to manage the said account.

B. As of January 2016, the Plaintiff deposited total of KRW 220,000,000, and KRW 50,000,000 in case of C, the Plaintiff’s seat, and KRW 30,00,00 in case of D, respectively, and invested KRW 30,00,00 in each of the above accounts.

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, C, and D”)

After that, the above account remains 112,490,000 won due to investment loss, and the plaintiff et al. decided to re-investment in the company where the defendant is living together with E and remitted the above balance to the company representative account on June 2016.

On November 11, 2016, the Defendant kept KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff, etc., and promised to return KRW 220,000 to C, KRW 50,000 to D, and KRW 30,00,00 to D until November 30, 2016.

‘The custodian: E and the joint guarantor: the defendant) prepared and delivered a cash storage certificate of the contents.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above agreed amount of KRW 220,000,000 and delay damages therefor.

B. As to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was given a cash custody certificate from the representative of the above company around December 2016 and agreed to invalidate the cash custody certificate as of November 11, 2016. However, it is not sufficient to recognize this only with the statement in subparagraph 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s objection against the Plaintiff as to the existence of the obligation is reasonable from December 1, 2016, which is the day following the date of payment for KRW 220,000,00,00, to May 3, 2018.

참조조문