beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 125,00,000 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from October 1, 201 to November 23, 201.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On December 16, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) under which the Plaintiff entrusted the custody of KRW 155,000,000 to Defendant C with the custody of KRW 155,00,000 in the civil appellate trial lawsuit (the lawsuit for the registration of cancellation of ownership). On the same day, the Plaintiff issued the said KRW 155,00,000 to Defendant C.
B. On September 23, 2011, Defendant B drafted a written confirmation to the Plaintiff that he would return the unpaid amount out of the deposited amount by the end of September 2011.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 125,00,000 (i.e., the said amount of KRW 155,000,000 - KRW 30,000,000 that the Plaintiff was returned from the Defendants) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from October 1, 201 to November 23, 2011 on the record that the copy of the instant complaint is served on the Defendants, as sought by the Plaintiff, from October 1, 2011 to November 23, 201.
B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the said custody amount was consumed by the Plaintiff’s domestic and foreign expenses, D and E U.S. interest, with the Plaintiff’s consent.
However, since it is not sufficient to recognize only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including each number if there is a serial number), the defense is without merit.
In addition, Defendant B, as the above written confirmation of September 23, 201 was drafted by the Plaintiff’s coercion, and thus, Defendant B’s expression of intent to return the unclaimed amount out of the deposited money is invalid.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff's coercion was forced, and the above defense is also without merit.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.