beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 6, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to lend KRW 100 million to the Defendant on May 30, 2013 and at 18% per annum; and (b) remitted the Defendant total of KRW 100 million, including KRW 50 million on February 7, 2013 and KRW 50 million on February 8, 2013.
(hereinafter the Defendant’s above debt was 50 million won out of the above 100 million won, and D, the actual operator of the Plaintiff Company, was one’s own relative and the vice president of the Plaintiff Company, borrowed from C, the vice president of the Plaintiff Company.
B. As the Defendant did not repay the instant borrowed money after the maturity period, C demanded the Defendant to pay the money directly. On January 7, 2014, the Defendant remitted KRW 100 million to C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1's evidence 1 to Gap 3, Eul 1's evidence, Eul 4-1's evidence, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant paid KRW 100 million to C is not a valid repayment of the loan of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan of KRW 100 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. The Defendant’s assertion ① constitutes legitimate right of repayment or expression receipt, and even if it is not so, since the Plaintiff ratified the above repayment as effective repayment, the repayment to C is also effective for the Plaintiff. The amount transferred to C by the Defendant is all remitted to C as principal repayment of the borrowed amount.
② Even if there is no right to receive reimbursement to C, performance to C is effective to the extent that the Plaintiff, a creditor, under Article 472 of the Civil Act, has received the benefit.
③ If there is no right to receive reimbursement to C, the Defendant has the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 100 million against C, and C has the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment of KRW 50 million against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant extended the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 50 million with the above loan of KRW 50 million by subrogation of C.