beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 251,038,581 as well as 5% per annum from April 29, 2016 to November 9, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a church belonging to the maintenance foundation of the maintenance foundation of the Honorary Curriculum General Meeting of the Korea War Veterans Association. The defendant was a person who was a plaintiff church B from around 1988 to June 2015.
B. Around April 2, 2012, the Defendant deposited KRW 200 million in the NA regular deposit account in the name of the Defendant, but received KRW 14,676,750 of the interest of KRW 200 million in the said regular deposit account around April 2, 2014 at the maturity of the said regular deposit, and deposited the principal amount of KRW 200 million in the NA regular deposit account in the name of the Defendant, again, on April 2, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 9,864,010 with interest of KRW 200 million in the said regular deposit account and deposited the principal amount of KRW 200 million in the NA regular deposit account in the name of the Defendant again.
C. Meanwhile, from around 2011 to around 2015, the Defendant received KRW 26,497,821 from the Plaintiff and deposited the construction donation into the agricultural cooperative account under the name of the Defendant.
The plaintiff requested the defendant to return the above construction contribution and interest thereon, but the defendant does not return it.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 251,038,581 (i.e., total construction contribution amounting to KRW 226,497,821, Apr. 2, 2014, interest KRW 14,676,750, and interest KRW 9,864,010 that was received before April 2, 2016) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as provided by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, upon the Plaintiff’s request, from April 29, 2016, on the day following the day when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant, to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is the scope of recognition.