계금반환
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. On or around March 12, 2013, the Plaintiff determined the cause of the claim (hereinafter “the instant system”) and “50 million won or less organized by the Defendant.”
The fact that the Plaintiff joined the 13th priority order as the 1/2th class, and the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said deposit amount of KRW 12,480,00 in total from October 2013 to October 2013 (i.e., the total remittance amount of KRW 9,000,000 in the name of the Plaintiff and his/her father-child C) (i.e., the total remittance amount of KRW 3,480,000 in the name of the Plaintiff and his/her father-child) to the Defendant who is the principal of the guidance. As such, there is no dispute between the parties, so long as the instant deposit was transferred on October 13, 2013 and paid by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said deposit amount of KRW 12,480,00 and delay damages therefrom,
2. The defendant's assertion that he did not know the plaintiff and paid the fraternity instead of C by taking the form of joining the instant fraternity to repay his debts to C. Thus, the plaintiff is merely a borrowed fraternity, and as long as the defendant settled all the fraternitys paid to C, the defendant does not have a duty to refund the fraternitys to the plaintiff.
However, the name of the 13th order 1/2 shares in the book of this case is the plaintiff. C was admitted as the 1, 3, 10, and 11 order members of the book of this case. However, in light of the fact that there was a very number of financial transactions between the defendant and C in addition to the book of this case, C did not prove that it lent the name to the plaintiff separately from the sequence of his own share in the book of this case.
Furthermore, unless there is any evidence to prove that C has the authority to refund the accounts paid in the name of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant settled the accounts of the accounts paid in the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff on the ground that C completed the settlement of accounts with respect to C.
On the other hand, the plaintiff's debt C.