beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendant, including the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim added by this court, is as follows.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In around 2001, the Plaintiff came to know of the Defendant while working in Suwon-si “H” located in Suwon-si, and used each of the above accounts in the name of the Defendant, around 2001, the post office account (Account Number K), around 2003, the International Association MMF account (Account Number L), around 2006, and around 2007, the International Association MMF account (Account Number M).
B. On November 27, 2006, the Defendant prepared a statement of performance (Evidence A 1) to the effect that “A bank account in the name of the principal is confirmed to be the Plaintiff,” and delivered to the Plaintiff.
C. On March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that “Around July 3, 2002, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 200 million to the Defendant as the purchase fund of tourist buses, etc., and thereafter, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 400 million to the Plaintiff by May 30, 2006 instead of the above loan.” The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for seeking KRW 400 million and its delay damages (hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”). At that time, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant prior lawsuit”), each of the Defendant’s respective bank accounts under the name of each of the Defendant (number No. 1 N, ②O, P, ④, ⑤ Q, ⑤, R, S, T, and ① to the account “each of the instant accounts”). At that time, the Plaintiff provisionally seized the claim amount of KRW 220 million and its delay damages.
(U.S. District Court 2010Kadan100817). D.
On August 23, 2010, the Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of performance (Evidence A2; hereinafter “instant letter”) stating, “The Defendant confirmed that each of the instant accounts was the bonds trusted by the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff the right to claim the return of deposits to each of the instant accounts; or delegated the right to terminate and receive deposits to the Plaintiff; and (c) recognized the Plaintiff’s claim regarding the instant prior suit.”
E. On September 2, 2010, “the Defendant” in the preceding lawsuit of the instant case is 30 million won against the Plaintiff.