손해배상(기)
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 69,937,319, and KRW 18,104,400 and each of them shall be repaid from January 7, 2020.
1. The facts acknowledged by the Defendant, on November 2012, 2012, came to know of the Plaintiffs from that time, on the grounds that the Defendant would make documents to raise an objection against the revocation of driver’s license due to the Plaintiff’s traffic accident of the Plaintiff A, who was employed by the Plaintiff B and her husband, as a driver of the Daejeon District Court in front of the Daejeon District Court, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon, and that the Plaintiff would seek to resolve the said case.
Plaintiff
On November 2012, 2012, the defendant against A stated that "3 million won is required to attempt to enter into an agreement with the victims of traffic accidents. If the resolution of the case is well possible, Na shall be given a reward of one million won to Na, and 500,000 won shall be given to the person who has engaged in daily treatment at a mutual aid association." It shall be delivered 3 million won from the plaintiffs. On December 2012, 2012, the defendant paid 1 million won to the victims of traffic accidents without reaching an agreement, and 5 million won shall be paid to the victims of traffic accidents. Since the victims of traffic accidents did not reach an agreement, 200,000 won shall be used as deposit money, 5 million won shall be used as deposit money, and 2 million won shall be additionally received from the plaintiffs, and 5 million won shall be paid to the victims and 5 million won shall be paid by the defendant to 2,5131,200,000 won among the victims of traffic accidents."
On December 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) concluded that, around December 13, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a notarized statement to the effect that, “I would return the money to A after the month in which I would return the money as it is, inasmuch as I would have known that there was a retirement allowance to be received by the company by the party; and (b) the Plaintiffs would have borrowed money from the party because I would have to seize the retirement allowance if I would have known that there was a retirement allowance to be received by the party.”
However, the defendant's retirement allowance of the plaintiff A as above.