beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. At the time when the Plaintiff’s assertion was detained as a result of the violation of the Immigration Control Act on November 7, 2007, the Plaintiff asked C and D to lend 6 million won for the attorney’s fee to the Defendant, and C and D paid 3 million won for each attorney’s fee to the Defendant. After hearing the Defendant’s horses that require more attorney’s fee and thereafter, requested E to pay 8 million won for the attorney’s fee to the Defendant, and E deposit 8 million won for the Defendant’s account around November 27, 2007.
However, the Defendant used 4.9 million won out of the total amount of 14 million won paid as attorney-at-law appointment costs as attorney-at-law appointment costs, and took advantage of the remaining 9.1 million won for personal purposes or embezzled unjust enrichment.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 9.1 million won and damages for delay due to unjust enrichment or embezzlement.
2. Determination
A. As to the amount paid to the Defendant by C and D on November 2007, the Defendant received KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff’s type C, and KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff’s leakage or D, respectively, and used KRW 4.9 million among them at the Plaintiff’s attorney’s expense, the fact that the Defendant used it as the Plaintiff’s attorney’s fee does not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the entry of the evidence No. 3.
However, according to the evidence No. 4, even though the plaintiff transferred KRW 4 million to D on June 4, 2010, it is recognized that it is difficult to view that D paid KRW 3 million to the defendant for two or more years after D paid KRW 3 million to the defendant, and ② The legal representative, spouse, lineal relatives, brothers and sisters of the defendant or suspect may appoint a defense counsel independently in criminal proceedings. Thus, it is possible that C and D, a sibling of the plaintiff, had the number of evidence No. 1, 4, and 6.