beta
Text
1. The Defendants each of the KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 3, 2015 to November 30, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The facts admitted in the lawsuit (Seoul High Court 2013Na42689 (main suit), damages claim, etc., 2013Na42696 (Counterclaim), etc., hereinafter “related lawsuit”) between the Plaintiff (representative), who is a member of the network D and E (hereinafter “E”), and Defendant C, Nonparty F, G, H, H, and E, are as shown in attached Table 1.
B. On April 17, 2014, the relevant litigation court rendered a judgment on the following grounds: (a) Defendant B is liable for tort against Defendant B to extinguish the claim for the agreed amount regarding the net sampling; (b) Defendant B is liable for damages as an employer; and (c) Defendant C is liable for tort against the network D directly due to the act of preparing a written agreement by neglecting his/her duty of care as an attorney in the position of attorney-at-law; and (b) Plaintiff F, G, and H is jointly and severally liable for the said damages liability in the position of the member attorney-at-law. The judgment containing the same text as the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “related judgment”) was pronounced on September 4, 2014. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on September 4, 2014.
C. Based on the relevant judgment, the network D applied for a compulsory auction (Seoul Central District Court I) of real estate (Seoul Central District Court I) to which the debtor and owner are the Plaintiff, and as a result, received dividends in KRW 1,034,564,513 as the heir of the network D on July 2, 2015.
For reference, the principal and interest on the credit account statement of the network D is KRW 1,074,016,658 (= Principal KRW 719,739,399) and KRW 354,277,259.
【Ground of Recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 8, B, or 4 (including Serial number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading, 【Insufficient Evidence No. 1, 2, and 3】
2. Determination: centered on the existence and scope of the relationship of indemnity;
A. The liability for damages caused by Defendant B’s intentional tort, recognized in the relevant judgment, and the liability for damages borne by E as an employer of Defendant B;