The scope of the agreement that the interest of 5% per month shall be added to the debt to be borne by the transportation company to the company by the local owner.

If the agreement by which the plaintiff, as the land owner, had the obligation to pay to the defendant company the interest rate of 5% per month on the delayed payment of the land owner's delayed payment of the loan to the defendant company is insufficient, and the interest rate of the amount paid to the defendant company is equivalent to 5% per annum per month because the defendant company failed to pay the funds, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have paid to the defendant company the interest rate of 5% per month as agreed damages for all the obligations to pay to the defendant company as the land owner's repayment. Thus, while the plaintiff is liable to pay the interest rate of 5% per month to the defendant company, it shall include the plaintiff's utility amount of 200,000, which is the amount useful for the market distribution.

Article 398 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Passenger transport

Seoul District Court of First Instance (71Gahap16)

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,859,029 and the amount calculated by the rate of 5 percent per annum from the next day of service of the complaint to the next day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

Judgment like the Disposition

In full view of the purport of the parties’ arguments as to Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 3 and Non-Party 4's testimony before remanding the court below's judgment, the defendant owned 54 passengers' votes around March 1962 and operated the company as the 1st shareholder or the 21st shareholder's interest rate of the 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 6th shareholder's 5th shareholder's 1.

The plaintiff company's legal representative distributed profits excluding all expenses at the end of each month to the defendant company at the rate of 5 percent of the monthly interest rate for the above 8-month interest rate. The defendant company's legal representative deducted 36,800 won from the monthly interest rate for 280,000 won used by the plaintiff. Since the above 8-month interest rate for the defendant company was consumed as the representative director's interest rate for 5-month interest rate for the above 0-month interest rate for the above 0-month interest rate, the above 280,000 interest rate shall not be added to 5-month interest rate for the above 0-month interest rate for the above 0-month interest rate for the defendant company. Thus, the plaintiff's legal representative's legal representative's claim that the above 0-month interest rate shall be deducted from the above 0-month interest rate for the above 0-month interest rate for the above 10-month interest rate for the above 0-month interest rate for the defendant company.

Therefore, since the interest rate of 366,800 won per annum for 280,000 won is the agreed damages to be borne by the plaintiff against the defendant company, it is lawful to deduct the above amount from the profits that the defendant should distribute to the plaintiff.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is groundless, it shall be dismissed. Accordingly, since the part against the defendant among the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment shall be revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the plaintiff's claim for this shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judge Han Man-Sung (Presiding Judge)