beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 19,500,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from December 13, 2015 to July 21, 2016.
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant was established on February 4, 2013, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s director at the time of the establishment of the Defendant Company and served as the representative director (from February 4, 2013 to February 28, 2014) or director, and was dismissed on June 15, 2015.
B. On January 20, 2014, the Defendant leased and used 20,000,000 won from Nonparty C’s stores of the second floor of the building Kimpo-si D, Kimpo-si. On December 10, 2014, the above lease contract was terminated on and around December 10, 2014. The Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s representative, delivered the said store and was paid 19,290,000 won from the lessor (=2,00,000,000 won on October 30, 2014) from the lessor (i.e., KRW 16,860,000 on December 16, 2014).
C. As of August 2014, the Defendant Company was an employee E (monthly wage of KRW 1,500,000) and F (Monthly Wage of KRW 2,200,000) who is the Plaintiff’s birth, in addition to the Plaintiff, a representative (monthly wage of KRW 3,00,000), and retired from the Defendant Company on September 31, 2015, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1 to 7, Eul evidence 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked as the Defendant’s director until June 15, 2015, and was not paid KRW 21,000,000 from December 2, 2014 to June 2015 (i.e., KRW 3,000,000). Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought payment.
B. A summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff closed the Defendant’s office on September 19, 2014, and opened the account thereafter, and thereafter suspended the Defendant’s business. Therefore, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that it was not obligated to pay remuneration from October 2014, and instead, it should return to the Defendant the Defendant with unjust enrichment of KRW 12,00,000 (=3,000,000 for remuneration for the five months (4 months).
3. The plaintiff is also working for the defendant company.