beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 513,675,780 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 27, 2018 to January 9, 2019.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff is the vice president of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) from around 2005 to May 2015.
The Defendant is a person who works as a representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) from December 2, 2008 to May 2015, and actually controlled the so-called “F Group” in which E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) which is the largest shareholder of D and D belongs.
On December 2, 2013, the Director of the Yongsan Tax Office imposed a total of KRW 513,675,780 on the Defendant (hereinafter “instant gift tax”).
[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 8, the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings at the plaintiff's expense. Thus, since the plaintiff paid the gift tax of this case on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the necessary expenses paid to delegated affairs pursuant to Article 688 of the Civil Act or the necessary expenses paid for the management of affairs pursuant to Article 739 (1) of the Civil Act, which is 513,675,
Judgment
A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 12 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 9, and the overall purport of arguments and arguments, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff paid at his own expense for KRW 513,675,780 of the gift tax of this case, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 513,675,780 as repayment of expenses for management of affairs under Article 739 of the Civil Act and delay damages therefrom.
(In addition to the claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred in relation to the management of affairs, the Plaintiff seeks the right to demand reimbursement of expenses incurred in relation to delegated affairs under Article 688 of the Civil Act. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with the payment of the gift tax of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred