beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.09.07 2017가단541027

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 123,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 8, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment of deemed as a confession due to a absence of the defendant);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. On March 2, 2017, Defendant C conspired with Defendant B on March 2, 2017, and obtained money from Defendant C by receiving KRW 15,00,000 from Defendant C’s regional unit agricultural bank account, on the following grounds: (a) Defendant C used the Plaintiff as a motor vehicle construction cost for a building owned by Defendant B without intent or ability to complete payment; and (b) Defendant C provided a motor vehicle owned by the Plaintiff as security; and (c) obtained money from the Plaintiff as KRW 15,00,00.

Therefore, Defendant C is jointly with Defendant B and is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 15,000,000 as compensation for damages caused by the tort, and the delay compensation therefor.

B) Even if Defendant C’s conjunctive assertion did not constitute the deception of Defendant C, it acquired money from the Plaintiff without any legal ground. As such, Defendant C jointly with Defendant B, who is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,00,000 as unjust enrichment return, and delay damages therefor. Defendant C operated the pawnpo. Defendant C visited Defendant C’s office on March 2017, and Defendant C and the Plaintiff completed the Plaintiff’s application for the loan on one’s own hand and provided the Plaintiff’s automobile as security and received KRW 10,000,000 in cash.

Since Defendant C, who received a loan from Defendant C, will deposit KRW 15,00,000,000, the remainder of KRW 5,000,000,000, excluding KRW 10,000,000, is requested to change the vehicle with the vehicle. Defendant C is only the same, and there is no fact that Defendant C did not incur any damage to the Plaintiff in collusion with Defendant B.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the 1st argument, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15,000,000 from the Smart Savings Bank on March 2, 2017, and on the same day.