beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff leased and used the 5,6,9, and 7, and 10,00,00 won in total of the deposit money for lease from the Defendants, and the term of lease expires. The Plaintiff and the Defendants returned the leased object to their original state until September 30, 2014, and the Defendant agreed to return the deposit money.
B. On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff, as an employee of the Defendants, introduced E, a construction business operator, from the Director of the Management Office in charge of the said building management, entered into a contract for restoration work with D and D representing E as KRW 27.5 million (including value-added tax), and deposited advance KRW 8.25 million with E’s account on September 23, 2014, and thereafter, the restoration work was undertaken under the management and supervision of D.
C. However, according to the Defendant’s estimate on September 26, 2014, the Defendant asserted to the effect that according to the Defendant’s estimate of the aforementioned restoration work itself, the cost of restoration would be reduced to KRW 65 million, and thus, the deposit would be deducted to the deposit. Since there was an imminent circumstance that the Plaintiff should pay the deposit for the lease of a building to be newly occupied until October 4, 2014, the Plaintiff did not have to receive a refund from the Defendants, on October 1, 2014, of KRW 42,568,00 (the agreement amounting to KRW 45,00,000-public charges amounting to KRW 2,432,00) unilaterally prepared and presented by the Defendant’s side (the agreement amounting to KRW 5,50,500,000).
Therefore, the agreement under the agreement of this case denies the restoration work performed with the approval of the defendants, and obtains unfair profits by deducting the large amount of construction cost by taking advantage of the plaintiff's imminent circumstances. Thus, the agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act, or causes unfair damages to the plaintiff as an intentional tort. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff.