beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 43,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from March 20, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 25, 2010, C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, the father of the Plaintiff, and received a favorable judgment on May 25, 2010 (Seoul Central District Court 2009Kadan496230) that “The Defendant shall pay C the amount of KRW 50 million and the amount of delay damages therefor).” This was finalized on January 27, 2011 by dismissal of appeal (Seoul Central District Court 2010Na23875) (Seoul Central District Court 2010Na9026) and dismissal of appeal (Supreme Court 2010Da9026).
B. Upon the commencement of compulsory execution based on the above enforcement title, the Defendant left the wife D with the settlement thereof.
C. Upon D’s request, on November 1, 201, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 43 million from one’s head of his head of his head of his head office, and had D repay KRW 43 million out of the Defendant’s debt.
[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The third party's repayment is, in itself, beneficial for the debtor, and therefore, unless there is any counter-proof, it should be acknowledged that the debtor is no less favorable and not contrary to his will, and the third party who has repaid the debt shall be deemed a kind of business management, and thus, the third party who has repaid the debt shall have the right of recourse against the debtor
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 4293Da729, Nov. 9, 1961; 201Da68203, Apr. 26, 2012). In the instant case, the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant’s debt in lieu of KRW 43 million, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff may seek reimbursement of the said debt to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance.
B. The defendant asserts that the above KRW 43 million was donated to himself or lent to D.
The mere fact that the plaintiff was the defendant's father and did not take any legal measures for not less than seven years prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case is insufficient to recognize the fact of donation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, D is not the defendant merely because D is the defendant's wife.