보증금반환청구 및 분양대금청구의 소
1. Defendant C Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest thereon from March 21, 2018 to the date of full payment.
On December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff Company A’s obligation to return the deposit amount of the Defendant Company A to obtain the “right of construction of a short-term official type” related to the sales business, which was promoted by the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd., and as a result, the Defendant transferred KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) in the office of representative director, and the Plaintiff Company A was unable to obtain the said “short-term official construction right” due to the lawsuit related to the project site of the Dispute Settlement Bank, etc., the fact that the Defendant Company transferred the said KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). As the Plaintiff Company was unable to obtain the said “short-term official construction right” due to the lawsuit related to
Therefore, the defendant company is obligated to pay the above KRW 100,000,000 and damages for delay to the plaintiff A.
On January 7, 2015, the Defendant Company: (a) returned KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 7, 2015; and (b) the Defendant Company remitted total of KRW 80,000,000 to the Plaintiff, including KRW 30,000,000 on July 3, 2015; and (c) on July 8, 2015, KRW 80,000 on July 14, 2015, including KRW 20,000,000, to the Plaintiff.
① We examine the above argument.
Plaintiff
A asserts that the above KRW 20,000,000 was not a refund of the above deposit by the Defendant Company, but that Defendant D lent the above deposit to the said Plaintiff individually. According to the evidence Nos. 2, it can be known that the above KRW 20,000,000 was remitted from Defendant D’s personal account, not the Defendant Company’s account, to the Plaintiff’s account. As such, it is insufficient to recognize that the above KRW 20,000,000 was remitted to the Plaintiff under the name of the return of the above deposit, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
② We examine the above argument.
Plaintiff
A asserts that the above sum of KRW 80,000,000 is not for the return of the above deposit but for the repayment of Defendant D’s debt to Defendant D’s account, the Defendant Company remitted the above Plaintiff’s account to the above Plaintiff.
Gap 11, 12, 14.