beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 570,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 23, 2013 to January 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff entered into a joint agreement with the Defendant to purchase, sell, and divide the proceeds therefrom, and paid KRW 1.1 billion to the Defendant. Since around November 25, 201, the Plaintiff agreed that the obligation to return KRW 1.1 billion under the above business agreement shall be the purpose of a loan for consumption, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said KRW 1.1 billion to the Plaintiff and its delay damages.
B. Since the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff during the process of concluding the above partnership agreement and acquired by deceptioning KRW 1.1 billion, the Defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages equivalent to the same amount that the Plaintiff suffered due to the above Defendant’s tort.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. A quasi-loan for consumption held as to a claim under a quasi-loan for consumption refers to the effect of a loan for consumption between the parties in case where the parties are liable to provide money, or any other substitutes, not by a loan for consumption, and the subject matter is the subject matter of a loan for consumption, and the parties to an existing obligation are required to agree that the subject matter of a loan for consumption shall be the subject matter of a loan for consumption. Thus, the parties to a quasi
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2846 Decided December 06, 2002). According to each of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including serial numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) around November 16, 2006, a party who entered into a joint business agreement with the plaintiff with respect to the instant commercial building is a stock company (hereinafter referred to as "D"), and D received KRW 1.1 billion from the plaintiff under the said contract, and the defendant, around November 25, 201, may recognize the fact that the party entered into the joint business agreement with the plaintiff with respect to the instant commercial building and received KRW 1.1 billion from the plaintiff under the said contract.
In light of the above legal principles, the defendant is an existing debtor.