logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2017가단5241249
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment that the Defendant, while knowing that C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was faced with the immediately preceding business crisis, said that he would be responsible and repaid without notifying the Plaintiff, and that he/she would belong to the Plaintiff, and that he/she would belong to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2011.

3. 31. 31. The defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 16,000,000 and delay damages amounting to KRW 16,000.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the plaintiff remitted each of the amounts of KRW 16,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as "the dispute amount") to the national bank account (E) in the name of the defendant who is his/her spouse, using the D account that is his/her spouse, with the total of KRW 14,00,000,000 on March 25, 201, and the total of KRW 16,00,000 on March 31, 201, and the current account transaction of KRW 3 was suspended on April 7, 201, and on April 14, 2011, it can be recognized that the entry registration of the decision to commence voluntary auction under subparagraph 7 of Article 4 of the Jeju F Building No. 3 owned by the plaintiff was completed.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming payment of the key money by asserting that the borrower is the Defendant or the Defendant agreed to repay the key money to the Plaintiff, but the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered final and conclusive (Seoul Central District Court Decisions 2015Da338773, 2016Na3957, 2017, and 2017Da224371,), and considering these circumstances, it is recognized that the Defendant’s key money was transferred to its nominal account, and it is difficult to find out any circumstances supporting this, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant has the duty of care in accordance with the good faith principle to investigate and confirm the financial status or financial ability of C when receiving the key money from its nominal account and notify the Plaintiff of it. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone belongs to the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant.

arrow