beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal and additional arguments of the court of first instance are determined as to the grounds for appeal and the addition of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that since F, the representative director of B, arbitrarily remitted the amount of one billion won out of the loans of the bankruptcy bank, a corporate fund, to the defendant, and the defendant knew, or was unaware of gross negligence, that the said money was embezzled, the defendant is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment. 2) According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, and 13, testimony of the party witness G, testimony of the party witness G, and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that F, in order to secure losses caused by provisional seizure of G property, kept KRW 1 billion to G and that he received KRW 1 billion using the defendant's account, the wife, as a method of keeping, using the defendant's account.
Therefore, B, aside from holding the claim for the return of the deposit amount of KRW 1 billion against G in subrogation of F, it is difficult to view that the defendant has a claim for the return of unjust enrichment with respect to G, and the above argument is rejected.
B. The Plaintiff in the part of the custody agreement was kept by B in custody of KRW 1 billion to the Defendant, and sought the return thereof. However, as seen earlier, the fact that F kept KRW 1 billion to G in order to guarantee damage caused by provisional attachment of property and G was transferred to G using the Defendant’s account, the wife, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that B and the Defendant had a custody agreement of KRW 1 billion between B and the Defendant. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.
C. The Plaintiff is deemed to have committed a joint tort by taking part in F’s embezzlement of KRW 1 billion and providing one’s account.