beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 100 million and its amount to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum from July 9, 2013 to December 15, 2015.
Reasons
1. Claim against Defendant C
A. The part on Defendant C among the grounds for the attachment to the indication of the claim
(b) Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Provided, That Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from July 9, 2013 to December 15, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment
2. Claim against the defendant B
A. As alleged in the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, Defendant C, without any authority, received KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff as the balance of the purchase price of the land and acquired it by deception.
However, after that, Defendant B received the total of KRW 83 million from Defendant C, and in light of these facts, Defendant B and Defendant C conspired to obtain KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and divided it.
Therefore, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100 million as compensation for joint tort with Defendant C.
B. Determination
A. Based on the Plaintiff’s major grounds that Defendant B participated in the crime of defraudation by Defendant C, Defendant B received KRW 83 million from Defendant C, and Defendant B made a speech to the effect that “the money that Defendant B received from Defendant C is deducted from the purchase price to be paid” while making telephone conversations with the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant B is the person who received a transfer of KRW 43 million from Defendant C from September 23, 2013 to November 26, 2013.
(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B was paid in addition, and the remainder of KRW 40 million is difficult to recognize that Defendant C was paid by Defendant C. In addition, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 10, Defendant B made a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff on April 23, 2015, and Defendant B borrowed two-half of the two-half of the two-half of the two-half of the two-half of the two-half of the two. In the end, it would be difficult to deem that Defendant C was paid in addition to the Plaintiff’s claim.