2012 Gohap42739 Damage, etc.

1. A stock company;

2. B;

3. C

D Corporation

July 11, 2013

August 22, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall serve on the plaintiff corporation 2,420,000 won and its 2,00,000,000 won from October 17, 2008; 200,000,00 won from January 27, 2009; 220,000,000 won from November 1, 209; 302,50,000 won from among them; 300,000 won to the plaintiff corporation; 250,000,000 won from among them; 305,00,000 won from each of them; 20,000,000 won from 25,00 won from 20,000 won from 30,50,000 won from 30,50,000 won from 30,000 won from 27,000 won per annum; 305,7,010,000 won from 105.

1. Judgment on the grounds of the primary claim by the plaintiffs

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

On January 5, 2009, the plaintiffs entered into a contract under which the plaintiff Gap corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff Gap") will invest the business funds and distribute business profits (hereinafter referred to as "investment contract on January 5, 2009") with the defendant's company 2.2 billion won (=2 billion won of business funds + service cost for design authorization + 200 million won), and the plaintiff Eul corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff Eul") filed a claim for the return of 2.5 billion won (2.5 billion won of business funds + service cost for design authorization + 250 million won of business funds + service cost for design authorization + 825 million won of business funds) and the defendant did not return the above investment funds to the defendant's company 2.5 billion won if the plaintiff C did not perform its duty to return the funds to the defendant 1.5 billion won of the above investment contract.

B. Determination

1) Considering the overall purport of evidence No. 3 and argument No. 5, the defendant representative director, who was F and G were joint representative directors by November 10, 2008 when G was appointed as joint representative director on or before March 20, 2009. The evidence No. 1 alleged as the investment contract concluded with the defendant on January 5, 2009 that the plaintiffs concluded with the defendant was only one of the joint representative directors' seals, even though the date of preparation was January 5, 2009, which was one of the joint representative directors' seals, cannot be deemed valid (the plaintiff asserted that the other joint representative director was individually delegated the power of representation to G, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiffs paid the above evidence No. 200-1, No. 3-1, No. 4-1, No. 2007 evidence and evidence No. 200-1, No. 308-2, No. 700-1, evidence No.

2) Even if the investment agreement of this case is null and void with the seal of only one of the joint representative directors, it shall be deemed that there was ratification if the company knew that the act was done without the authority and approved that the act was effective. Since the checks paid by the plaintiffs were deposited into the corporate account in the name of the defendant and the defendant received and used it, it constitutes an implied ratification and thus, it is alleged that the investment agreement was approved on January 5, 2009. Thus, according to the evidence No. 9, it can be acknowledged that the amount of KRW 3 billion was deposited into the defendant's account around October 17, 2008. However, according to the evidence No. 2-1, No. 3-1, No. 4-1, and witness H's testimony alone, the defendant did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs made an investment agreement with G and the defendant paid KRW 3 billion.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims

If the defendant was unaware of the fact that the defendant entered into an investment contract on January 5, 2009 and G alone did not have the effect on the defendant, the defendant is obligated to return it because it made unjust enrichment of KRW 3.3 billion against the plaintiffs without any legal cause. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant is obligated to return it. Thus, although the fact that the defendant deposited the account in the name of the defendant as of October 17, 2008, the fact that the amount of KRW 3.0 billion was deposited in the account in the name of the defendant is as mentioned above, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiffs paid it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that it was paid by the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant did not have any legal ground to receive the above amount. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Tae-il

Judges Park Il-young

Judges Lee J-jin