대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
1. Upon B’s request, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred KRW 10 million on March 11, 2014 to the account held in the name of the Defendant; (b) KRW 5 million on April 18, 2014; and (c) KRW 23,000,000 on April 23, 2014; and (c) KRW 23,000,000 on June 5, 2014; and (d) the fact that at the time that the Plaintiff was registered as a broker assistant of the office of a licensed real estate agent operated by the Defendant is no dispute between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is obligated to return the above loan jointly and severally with the Eul, since the plaintiff received the above loan from the plaintiff to Eul as a passbook under his own name and used it as the operating expenses of the real estate brokerage office operated by the defendant. It does not so.
Even if the defendant employs the real estate office B and operates the real estate office, and aids and abets the above fraud act as provided by the defendant B, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money as compensation for damages on the basis of the liability of the joint tortfeasor or the user as the joint tortfeasor.
B. The Defendant’s assertion B is an employee of the real estate brokerage office operated by the Defendant, not his spouse, using the Defendant’s agricultural passbook at his own discretion. The Defendant’s assertion was entirely aware of the details, circumstance, and place of use of the said passbook received between the Plaintiff and B.
3. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that a loan agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is without merit, as there is no evidence to support that the agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
B. There is no evidence to acknowledge that B had acquired the said money by deceiving the Plaintiff even though B did not have any intent or ability to repay the claim for joint tort or employer liability.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion seeking aiding and abetting or employer's liability on the premise of the tort B is without merit.
4. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is among the judgment of the court of first instance.