beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 163,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 31, 2017 to July 27, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. In full view of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause for the claim, it is recognized that the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) stating that the Defendant, on September 21, 2017, stored KRW 163 million to the Plaintiff by October 30, 2017, and returned to the Plaintiff, after having kept it until October 30, 2017.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 163 million as stipulated in the cash custody certificate of this case and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 31, 2017 to July 27, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The gist of the assertion is C Consultation Executive Director, and the Defendant is grain wholesalers.
Around September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff sought the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was faced with a difficult position in monetary inside the C&C, which is the Plaintiff’s workplace, and asked the signature of KRW 163 million. The Defendant prepared the cash custody certificate of this case without receiving any money because the Defendant was at the location of B through the credit transaction with the C&C.
B. The Defendant’s assertion appears to the effect that the return agreement according to the cash custody certificate of this case was false, but there is no evidence to support that the Defendant only prepares the cash custody certificate of this case at the Plaintiff’s request without any intent to return money.
The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.