beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.11.19 2015가단39511

보관금반환

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 60 million and 20% per annum from June 17, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. 1) In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the following facts can be acknowledged. A) The defendant B is a certified judicial scrivener, and the defendant C has served as the head of the certified judicial scrivener office operated by the defendant B with the same birth of the defendant B.

B) On March 17, 2014, the Defendants confirmed that “70 million won is kept as all the expenses necessary for the registration of transfer of D real estate ownership in Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, and that if the transfer of registration is not possible by March 26, 2014, it shall be returned” (hereinafter “instant written confirmation”).

(C) However, until March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff did not transfer the registration under the instant confirmation, and Defendant C returned KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on June 11, 2014.

2. Therefore, according to the agreement on the confirmation of this case, the Defendants applied the statutory interest rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2015 to 15% per annum from June 17, 2015 to September 30, 2015 after the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendants, and the interest rate of 15% per annum from September 1, 2015 to September 15, 2015, as the provisions on the statutory interest rate of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings apply from October 1, 2015 to 20% per annum. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26574, Oct. 1, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26580, Oct. 15, 2015>

shall be liable to pay such amount.

B. As to the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that Defendant C is not liable for the instant deposit, since Defendant C prepared the instant confirmation document without Defendant B’s consent. However, in light of the overall purport of the entry and pleading in the evidence No. 2, Defendant B is Defendant C.