beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff is a corporation operating redevelopment apartment construction design business, etc., and the Defendant is the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) operating the business of collecting written consent from the members of the redevelopment area, and the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on January 18, 2012 does not conflict between the parties.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff held KRW 100,000 as entrusted by the non-party D, and sought to transfer KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant company at the request of F, who is the plaintiff's representative director and employee of the defendant company. However, due to mistake, the plaintiff transferred KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant from the plaintiff company's account, which is not C's account (hereinafter "the money of this case"). Thus, the defendant asserted that he acquired the above money without any legal ground and sought payment of the money of this case and damages for delay.
(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant Company cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that it performed the Plaintiff’s request for the consent form, such as the land for the promotion of the I and J Housing Redevelopment Improvement Project entrusted by the Plaintiff, and received the instant money as the service cost.
B. The facts of the above recognition are as follows, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 13, and 14 (including a serial number), namely, ① the plaintiff has engaged in money transactions between the defendant company and the defendant several times before and after the transfer of the money. ② In particular, the plaintiff transferred the money to the defendant on March 2, 2012, which was after the transfer of the money, ③ the plaintiff transferred the money of this case to the defendant’s account at the request of the employees of the defendant company. ④ The plaintiff transferred the money of this case to the defendant’s account. ④ The plaintiff must pay the money of this case to the defendant on February 23, 2015.