beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 900,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from August 31, 2008 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 20, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment with Seoul Southern District Court 2006Gahap19314 against the Defendant, and on April 20, 2007, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90 million, 5% per annum from April 13, 2006 to February 7, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 15, 2007.
B. The Plaintiff received KRW 309,27,601, total of KRW 309,27,601,000,000 on March 22, 2013, KRW 67,51,456 on September 26, 2013, KRW 18,403,454 on October 6, 2014, and KRW 23,362,691 on November 23, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Determination as to the cause of the claim shall be appropriated in sequence for the delayed payment of KRW 309,277,601 (Article 477, Article 479 of the Civil Act). 37,109,589 won (i.e., KRW 900 million x 301/365 x 5%) incurred until February 7, 2007, and the remainder 272,168,012 won from February 8, 2007 to August 12, 2008 (=272,168,012 x 90 million x 20% x 3655). In the end, the remainder of the judgment on the cause of the appropriation of the claim shall be appropriated for the delay payment damages of KRW 90,000 and damages for delay after August 13, 2008.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 13, 2008 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff recovered KRW 91,953,906, not KRW 67,511,456, Sept. 26, 2013, and received a repayment of KRW 24,442,450, more than the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, but the Defendant’s defense was insufficient to acknowledge this by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
(O) According to Gap 7, Yangcheon Tax Office received the above KRW 24,442,450. 3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified.