beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant B’s KRW 222,00,000, Defendant C’s KRW 111,361,50, and each of the above amounts, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. (1) around March 201, Defendant B agreed to pay KRW 300 million as consideration to the Plaintiff by concluding a contract for the supply of motor vehicle parts with the Korea Netherlands Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Dete dete detetem”). Since Defendant C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant C”) established by Defendant B with the Plaintiff’s endeavor entered into a contract for the supply of motor vehicle parts between Defendant C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant C”) and the Korea dete detem, and Defendant C traded traded the supply of motor vehicle parts to the Korea detem. As such, Defendant B should pay KRW 220 million remaining after subtracting the amount of KRW 78 million already paid to the Plaintiff in accordance with the said agreement.
(2) For the establishment and operation of Defendant C, the Plaintiff disbursed KRW 170 million, which was agreed upon by Defendant B to repay, or was disbursed by deceiving the Plaintiff as if Defendant B were to repay. As such, Defendant B should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 170 million, which was paid by the Plaintiff due to repayment agreement or tort compensation.
On the other hand, in relation to the above money, Defendant B made the above agreement with the representative director of Defendant C, and as such, Defendant C shall pay the above money jointly with Defendant C to the Plaintiff. Since the above money was used in preliminaryly for Defendant C, Defendant C shall be deemed as unjust enrichment and thus, it shall be returned to the Plaintiff.
(3) While the Plaintiff served as an employee of Defendant C, the said Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff wages from November 201, and Defendant C should pay the Plaintiff the total sum of KRW 34,620,670,00 to the Plaintiff.
B. With respect to the Defendants, the terms and conditions of the agreement asserted by the Plaintiff, which were operated by Defendant B at the time of the agreement, are not ELT, but ELT.