beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 28,500,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto are from July 3, 2018 to May 16, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is engaged in wholesale and retail business with the trade name of "C", and the defendant is in Korea, and the defendant is trying to engage in consulting and financial business in the Philippines (the defendant's wife's wife's wife).
B. On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff sent KRW 28,500,000 to the Nonghyup Bank account in the Defendant’s name on December 19, 2017, by reporting the Internet carbook with the content that the Plaintiff sold 400 punishment, which was posted by E.
C. G, a branch of D, requested D to exchange KRW 28.5 million with the Defendant’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, which would have to be deposited in the Defendant’s account, in the face of the Republic of Korea (the Philippines monetary unit).
D confirmed that the money was deposited from the Plaintiff, and delivered to G an amount of KRW 1,266,700 worth of KRW 28.5 million, which was kept in the office of G, and G delivered to H 1,239,100 on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 9, 10, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim for damages caused by a primary tort
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Defendant did not engage in the fraudulent act of H, the Defendant received KRW 28.5 million from the Plaintiff by aiding and abetting the Plaintiff to sell the said deceptive act. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 28.5 million due to the illegal act, and the damages for delay thereof. (2) The Defendant did not know whether the amount transferred from the Plaintiff was related to H’s deceptive act, and did not know that it was related to H’s deceptive act, and thus, the Defendant
B. The written evidence Nos. 1 through 8 of the judgment alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s above assertion that the Defendant participated in H’s fraud and acquired 28.5 million won against the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, B.