beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 60,703,50 per annum for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 16, 2017 to February 18, 2020.
Reasons
1. Determination as to Defendant B
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Determination as to Defendant C
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the claim for the return of KRW 20 million of the truck purchase price is the cause of this part. The Plaintiff prepared a sales contract with Defendant B to purchase the truck, and remitted KRW 20 million of the purchase price to Defendant C to the account in the name of Defendant C. Since the truck was disposed of to a third party and the Plaintiff could not be transferred to the name of the truck, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C seek the return of KRW 20 million of the truck purchase price.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff concluded a truck sales contract with Defendant C, and thus, it cannot be claimed against Defendant C for the return of the price on the ground of nonperformance under the truck sales contract.
(M) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant Eul to purchase the truck, and this is also the person who is also the plaintiff. The plaintiff merely claims the return of KRW 20 million to the defendant Eul on the ground of the non-performance of obligation under the truck sales contract on the ground that the above truck sales price was remitted to the account under the name of the defendant Eul. However, the defendant C is not a party to the truck sales contract, but is not liable for damages due to non-performance of obligation, unless there are special circumstances, such as acquisition of KRW 20 million remitted to his own account and acquisition of unjust enrichment without any legal cause, the plaintiff's transfer of KRW 20 million to the account under the name of the defendant C cannot immediately seek the return of KRW 20 million against the defendant. This part of the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit).
B. The plaintiff's ground of claim for damages due to the embezzlement of 40,703,50 won, ready-mixed, cement 40,700 won, is that of the plaintiff B.