(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단40824

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단40824

보관금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operated C Co., Ltd. established for the purpose of waste treatment business from around 2005 (hereinafter “instant company”). On July 22, 2008, the Defendant joined the instant company and served as an accounting officer. The Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained the pertinent relationship from around 2009 to 2012.

B. On June 11, 2012, the Plaintiff sold the instant company at KRW 2 billion, including all the real estate, machinery, and apparatus owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “foreign corporation”). At the time, the Plaintiff and the non-party corporation agreed to pay KRW 850 million out of the purchase price to the non-party corporation in lieu of the acquisition of obligations, such as various public charges, etc. of the instant company by the non-party corporation, until June 15, 2012, the amount of KRW 350 million is KRW 350 million, and the remainder is to be paid by the non-party corporation in the course of operating the instant company.

C. After receiving KRW 350 million out of the instant purchase price from the non-party corporation, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million on September 13, 2012, KRW 50 million on October 10, 2012, KRW 50 million on October 18, 2012, and KRW 200 million on October 18, 2012, to the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “the money of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, each party’s examination results against the plaintiff and the defendant, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was in a state where the relationship of joint and several sureties for the instant company’s obligation was not resolved at the time of receiving the instant purchase price, and thus, it was relatively safe to leave the instant money to the Defendant rather than keeping the Plaintiff’s personal passbook, and the Plaintiff kept the instant money to the Defendant for the purpose of using it for the business to be

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 200 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion of this case is that of the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.12 2013가합72799

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가합585729

-서울동부지방법원 2015.01.28 2014고단1036

-대전지방법원 2018.08.30 2017구단58

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.10.11 2015가단1916