logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.04.04 2017가합103168
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 250,000,000, and 5% per annum from May 11, 2017 to April 4, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts (no dispute exists);

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company conducting real estate sales agency business, etc., and Defendant B is the head of the Defendant Co., Ltd.

B. On August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 250,000,000 to an account under the name of D Co., Ltd. designated by Defendant B (hereinafter “D”) upon Defendant B’s request.

C. D is an executor of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-type reconstruction project, and entered into a sales agency service contract with the defendant company for the above reconstruction apartment on August 12, 2015.

2. As to the loan claim against the defendant company

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent KRW 250,00,000 to the Defendant Company via the Defendant Company through the Defendant Company. As such, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 250,000,000 and interest or delay damages thereon. 2) The Defendant Company’s Plaintiff, through the Defendant Company, purchased the instant reconstruction apartment from the Defendant Company in advance and paid KRW 250,00,000 to D with the sale price, and the said money was not leased to the Defendant Company. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

B. Determination 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff loaned KRW 250,000,000 to the defendant company by means of remitting money to the D account designated by the defendant company. ① At the time of the transfer of this case, the F, which introduced the plaintiff to the defendant company as employee of the defendant company, introduced the plaintiff by hearing her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her hers her her her hers her her her her

The above fact-finding document is specific and different.

arrow