beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 86,954,804 and its amount on April 2014.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the entry of "basic facts" in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant purchased the real estate Nos. 1 through 4 of this case on behalf of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") and used only KRW 338,686,650 (=500) in handling the above affairs by receiving a total of KRW 54,742,700 in relation to the lease of each of the real estate of this case and the real estate No. 5 of this case, and using only KRW 338,742,056,050 in handling the above affairs. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 544,742,70 (= KRW 338,056,00) and delay damages therefrom as compensation for damages or unjust enrichment.
3. Determination
A. According to Article 684(1) of the Civil Act and Article 684(1) of the Civil Act, a mandatory shall deliver money, goods, and other things received through the management of delegated affairs to the mandator if there is any negligence. In such a case, the time of delivery is when the delegation contract expires unless there is a special agreement between the parties or it goes against the essence of the delegation. Thus, the scope of money to be returned by the mandatory is also determined at the time of the termination of the delegation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64432, Feb. 8, 2007). In addition, in cases where the mandatory receives the money from the mandator in advance from the delegating to perform his/her duties, if there is any money remaining after using it in performing his/her duties, the mandatory is obligated to return it to the mandator, and the mandatory may not refuse to return it unless he/she proves the amount and purpose of the expenses paid (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da64432, Mar. 29, 2012).