beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from June 1, 2016 to May 23, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
Summary
A. The Defendant is a person who served as the principal of the Plaintiff’s association from May 2013 to April 2015.
B. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant arbitrarily lent KRW 30 million to A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) without deliberation and resolution by the Plaintiff Steering Committee and the board of representatives, thereby committing an occupational breach of trust. Accordingly, the Defendant incurred damages equivalent to KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 30 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff by discharging the liability for damages caused by the tort.
C. On January 15, 2016, the Defendant prepared and rendered to the Plaintiff a letter to the effect that the Plaintiff will repay KRW 30 million in relation to the act of occupational breach of trust (hereinafter “instant letter”).
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 30 million and delay damages as agreed upon by the contract-free payment obligation under the letter of this case.
Judgment
1) The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case brought by the plaintiff should be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was merely a branch of a trade union and has no capacity to do so. 2) Even if a branch of a trade union is a subordinate of a trade union, if it is an independent social organization, which has independent rules, is a non-legal entity, and has capacity to do so
(See Supreme Court Decision 76Da2194 Decided January 25, 197, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4299 Decided February 23, 2001, etc.). According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff is an organization composed of workers engaged in A and B, and is working as an independent social organization, such as the disbursement and operation of partnership expenses, with its own rules and executive organs.
If so, the plaintiff is an unincorporated association and is capable of being a party, so the defendant's prior defense on the merits is without merit.