logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.06.16 2013나8364
보증금반환등
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 28, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that “D Council members” located in the fourth floor building located in the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which is owned and operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant hospital”) KRW 50 million, premium of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 12 million, and KRW 30 million, out of the lease deposit on the date of the said agreement, and thereafter, paid the Defendant KRW 20 million to the Defendant on December 24, 2008, and KRW 20 million on December 30, 2008, and KRW 20 million on February 24, 2009, respectively.

(B) It is not clear whether the money paid after December 24, 2008 is a lease deposit or a premium.

However, the Defendant continued to operate the instant hospital without delivering it to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff served as the head of the instant hospital from January 23, 2009 to April 15, 201.

C. The Defendant, while working as the head of the headquarters of the instant hospital, embezzled the amount of KRW 148,109,880 in total, such as (i) the Plaintiff’s custody of the account passbook in the name of the Defendant, and (ii) the Defendant incurred damages equivalent to the above amount by embezzlement of KRW 148,109,880,000,000 from the account passbook in the name of the Defendant; (iii) withdrawal of KRW 250,000 from the account passbook in the middle-dong branch of the Bank in the name of the Defendant; and (iv) borrowed KRW 5,50,000 in total from the Defendant on May 4, 2011 from the account passbook in the middle-dong branch of the Bank in the Republic of Korea; and (v) the Plaintiff’s principal and interest KRW 8,273,000,000 and KRW 324,273 in total, on behalf of the Defendant; and (iii) the Defendant’s remaining claim against the Plaintiff is dismissed under the above judgment.

arrow