beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. With respect to the claim of KRW 30 million by asserting that the plaintiff paid the lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the defendant, the court below dismissed the part of the claim for damages for delay while accepting all the above claim, and the defendant filed an appeal only for the subrogated portion, so the scope of the judgment of the court below is limited to the claim for the amount of KRW 10 million on behalf of the defendant.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause for the claim Nos. 1 and 3, the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from C on February 12, 2009 to March 2, 2009; ② the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to C on October 10, 2012 on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant (the amount actually repaid is KRW 30 million including deposit for lease deposit).
(2) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10 million per annum from October 11, 2012 to December 22, 2014, the day following the date of service of a copy of the complaint in this case from October 11, 2012 to December 22, 2014, the date of service of the copy of the complaint in this case, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 23, 2014 to September 30, 2015, the provisions on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015) applicable to the provisions on the statutory interest rate in this case (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015).
B. The defendant's assertion 1) around March 2009, the defendant requested C to pay the amount of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff used the above KRW 10 million in another place and repaid the amount of KRW 10 million to C on October 10, 2012 after the plaintiff used the above KRW 10 million in another place, the plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 10 million to C. Thus, the defendant asserts that the claim for the amount of indemnity based on the subrogation is unjustifiable. 2)