logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.03.08 2016가단39353
대여금 및 손해배상
Text

1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 51,864,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Defendant B, as the managing director of the Plaintiff’s actual business in Co., Ltd., and on the ground that Defendant C, the representative director of the said company, was the head of B, Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s office, on May 2015, received orders from the Plaintiff for the manufacture of parts of one motor vehicle from Dong-si Unemployment Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff was provided with raw and subsidiary materials for the manufacture of machinery equivalent to KRW 129,536,000 from July 7, 2015 to October 1, 201 of the same year. Defendant B borrowed KRW 60,000 from the Plaintiff.

In addition, the Plaintiff closed the existing stores and offices of Co., Ltd. E in order to assist the Defendants’ businesses, and transferred them to the second floor office of Co., Ltd. on June 30, 2015.

Defendant B, while receiving KRW 62,630,00 from the Plaintiff’s loan to the Plaintiff as the name of the Plaintiff’s benefits and profit, did not repay KRW 23,536,00 of the loan to the Plaintiff. The Defendants conspired to discontinue the business of Plaintiff D and thereby Defendant B established F Co., Ltd. (F Co., Ltd., a representative director prior to the change: G) on November 12, 2015, and acquired all rights, such as current assets, outstanding deposits, claims for return of lease deposit, goodwill, etc. on March 24, 2016, but did not repay KRW 23,536,00 of the loan balance to the Plaintiff due to the suspension of business by E Co., Ltd. operated by the Plaintiff, which did not pay KRW 23,536,00 to the Plaintiff, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 51,864,328,00,000 to the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 23,536,000 per annum.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 9, E Co., Ltd.’s written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, 8, and 9, it is about the luxator to H Co., Ltd. operated by Defendant B on August 20,

arrow