beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 42,307,393 as well as 5% per annum from December 21, 2012 to September 2, 2015, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. Around December 2012, the Plaintiff delegated Defendant B with all of his/her authority on the withdrawal and receipt of dividends as a person entitled to demand a distribution of dividends, as a person entitled to demand a distribution of dividends under the Seoul Eastern District Court D Real Estate Auction Procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and issued a signature and seal to the power of attorney signed and sealed in blank.
B. Defendant B, after indicating the name of Defendant C, who is pro rata in the capacity of the above power of attorney, requested Defendant C to withdraw and receive the dividend of the instant auction procedure. Defendant C, as the Plaintiff’s agent, demanded the Seoul Eastern District Court to withdraw dividends and deposited the dividend amount of KRW 42,307,393 (hereinafter “instant dividend”) distributed to the Plaintiff by the deposited public official, on December 21, 2012, in the account in the name of Defendant B’s E (Account Number:F) designated by Defendant B.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted as the cause of the claim also delegated the authority to participate in the instant auction procedure to receive the Plaintiff’s dividends in order to return some of the damages incurred by Defendant B by deceiving Defendant B. The Defendants received the instant dividends and embezzled the instant dividends to the Plaintiff without paying them to the Plaintiff, thereby causing considerable damages to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants are obligated to pay damages to each Plaintiff as well as damages for delay from December 21, 2012, which is the date of tort.
B. According to the facts of recognition 1 as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B was delegated with the authority to withdraw and receive the instant dividends from the Plaintiff, and did not have been delegated with any authority to use the said dividends, and arbitrarily used the instant dividends to the Plaintiff after receiving KRW 42,307,393.