beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 17, 2010, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s agent arbitrarily consumed KRW 150 million of the lease deposit received when concluding a lease agreement with the Lone Starbucks Korea (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages of KRW 150 million caused by the tort.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the non-party company on September 17, 2010 with respect to the second and third floors among the buildings located in the area of Cheongju-si, the Plaintiff owned on September 17, 2010, for five years from the opening date of the lease term, and the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s agent at that time. ② The non-party company remitted the total deposit amount of KRW 1.5 million from September 2010 to October 20, 2010; ③ the Defendant deposited the Plaintiff’s account from September 30, 2010 to the Plaintiff’s account; ③ the Defendant deposited KRW 1.5 million from the Plaintiff’s account to October 26, 2010 to the Plaintiff’s account by means of account transfer and check withdrawal, etc., and the Plaintiff’s principal office, which was the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 120,000,00.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay damages of KRW 150 million and damages for delay which the defendant voluntarily withdrawn and consumed to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
B. Against this backdrop, the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s damage claim had expired, so the fact that the Defendant delivered the Plaintiff a passbook in the name of the Plaintiff, stating the fact of the withdrawal around April 2013, which was after the Defendant’s withdrawal of KRW 150,000,00, to the Plaintiff is without dispute between the parties. The following circumstances, namely, the Defendant’s statement on the evidence and evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 5, which were revealed by considering the overall purport of the pleadings, are that: