Plaintiff (Law Firm Inn & Lee, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 24, 2009

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gadan141267 Decided August 28, 2008

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendants pay to each plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from June 5, 2007 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the partial dismissal of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court's explanation on this case is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. Part 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is that “The Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “The Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act”)” is “The Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter “the Voluntary Act”), and “insurers” in Part 2 of the judgment of the second instance as “Guarantee Business Operator.”

(b) Article 682 of the Commercial Act is amended to "in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act" in Section 11 of Article 3 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

(c) Section 2-b) (3) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 4, 21 to 5) shall be dismissed as follows:

【Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant 1 paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on June 7, 2007, and that Defendant 1 did not object to the provisional seizure of claim against wages, thereby recognizing the Plaintiff’s obligation of reimbursement. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1’s obligation of reimbursement against the Plaintiff is not recognized, the above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

Judges Choi Jae-in (Presiding Judge)