beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation of this case is lawful ex officio by examining the following facts: (a) the defendant's claim for the return of the custody money based on the cash custody certificate as of February 6, 2014 can be acknowledged, and (b) the plaintiff's interest in the confirmation of the claim of this case is recognized.
Judgment on the merits
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff, along with the Defendant and C, had only one-third share the earnings by raising underground funds and paying profits. The Defendant established a passbook for the tea work by investing KRW 100 million, and C contacted with the warehouse manager in charge of the storage of underground funds, and the Plaintiff decided to manage the funds.
In this process, the Plaintiff, who was in charge of fund management, prepared a cash custody certificate to the Defendant that invested KRW 100 million. However, since D is exempted from the obligation to return the money deposited to the Defendant, there is no obligation to return the money deposited to the Defendant.
B. Whether the pertinent legal doctrine is overlapping as to the assumption of obligation is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the assumption of obligation agreement, and if it is not clear whether the assumption of obligation is a discharge or a overlapping acceptance is made in the assumption of obligation, it shall be deemed to have been taken over in duplicate.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da36228 Delivered on September 24, 2002). In addition, Article 454 of the Civil Act provides that where a third party assumes an obligation based on a contract with the obligor and discharges the obligor from the obligor’s obligation, it shall take effect against the obligee only with the consent of the obligee. Thus, where the obligee does not have the consent of the obligee, even if the obligor and the underwriter agree to assume an obligation based on a discharge, it shall not take effect only as a performance acceptance, etc., and the obligor
Supreme Court Decision 200