logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.06.13 2016가단32446
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As an auditor of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), the Plaintiff obtained a loan under the name of the Plaintiff, or paid the price of the instant company’s goods by using a credit card under the name of the Plaintiff, while conducting the instant accounting business.

B. The actual representative of the instant company is D, and the Defendant was appointed as the joint representative director of the instant company with D’s children E on February 21, 2013, and the instant company closed its business on December 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was the representative director of the instant company. As such, the Plaintiff was granted loans from the Hyundai Capital on February 13, 2015, and leased KRW 8,173,725 to the instant company as of December 15, 2015, and KRW 13,303,98 (=3,434,000 won, KRW 6,239,98, KRW 630,000) total of KRW 23,47,723 won (= KRW 10,173,725 won, KRW 13,303,998), and damages for delay from December 15, 2015, which the instant company closed down with respect thereto.

3. In light of the judgment, since the corporation and the representative director have a separate legal personality, the plaintiff's claim for the amount equivalent to the amount used for the corporation of this case as the representative director at the time of the plaintiff's claim as the name of indemnity, etc. is without merit, and the plaintiff lent money to the defendant individually.

There is no evidence to prove that the money used by the Plaintiff for the instant company was actually reverted to the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow