beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded by this court, shall be modified as follows:
Reasons
The defendant is a person who served as an employee of the plaintiff company and retired on March 31, 2014.
From February 19, 2003 to August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 30,507,000 to the Defendant as the school expenses for children B and C’s children (hereinafter “instant loan”).
The Defendant repaid KRW 3,084,400 among the instant loans, and currently unredeemed principal amount is KRW 27,422,600.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 27,422,60 won of outstanding principal, and 19,010,740 won of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, with respect to the plaintiff from April 8, 2016 to 8,41,860 won of the copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case, and the existence and scope of each obligation from December 10, 2016 to May 26, 2017, which is the day of the ruling of the court of the first instance where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation.
First, the Defendant asserted the Defendant’s defense, etc., and the Defendant holds a scholarship claim against the intra-company labor welfare fund (hereinafter “instant intra-company labor welfare fund”) and offset the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant with the aforementioned scholarship claim as the automatic bond.
In addition, the Plaintiff received school expenses from the employee by way of repayment of the outstanding loan with the scholarship when the employee who received the scholarship retires from the employee. This constitutes a set-off contract between the Plaintiff, the employee, and the intra-company labor welfare fund of this case, and thus, the instant case should be repaid equally.
On the other hand, the plaintiff on November 6, 2014.