beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of C (hereinafter “C”) and is the actual operator of D (hereinafter “D”) as the Plaintiff, E is the internal director of D, and the Defendant is holding office as D’s auditor.
January 9, 2017.
B. E, under the direction of ordinary Plaintiff, managed C and D’s funding management, and C’s corporate account from the corporate account to the Plaintiff’s name on December 6, 2016 and the same month.
7. Each 30 million won, and the same month;
8. Following the transfer of KRW 40 million and a total of KRW 100 million, from an account under the name of the plaintiff to an account under the name of the defendant on December 6, 2016 and the same month;
7. Each 30 million won, and the same month;
8. A total of KRW 40 million and KRW 100 million have been re-transfered.
C. The Defendant transferred KRW 10 million on December 9, 2016, KRW 80 million on the 16th of the same month, and KRW 90 million on the aggregate to E’s account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion is keeping custody of KRW 100 million transferred from the plaintiff's account under the name of the plaintiff, and when the above KRW 100 million is paid to other person than the plaintiff who is the owner, the plaintiff shall not ask or confirm the payment to the plaintiff, although there is a duty of care to confirm it, and the above KRW 90 million out of the above KRW 100 million shall be transferred to the E account, and the remaining KRW 10 million shall be paid to the E in return for a public offering to transfer KRW 100 million to the E account. This constitutes a tort by negligence contrary to the custodian's duty of care.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 100 million and the damages for delay.
3. The following facts, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following facts, i.e., testimony of witness E, evidence Nos. 3 and 8, evidence Nos. 6-2, evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, Eul No. 1-3, and Eul No. 1-2, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of this court’s response to the order to submit financial transaction information to passive agricultural cooperatives, i.e., E., the E.