beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) employed the Plaintiff on the terms of annual salary of KRW 200 million from April 18, 2016 to April 30, 2021, and paid 30% of the profits from the development project of the F factory site located in the Siljin-si to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, G, the actual inspection owner of C, as joint and several, guaranteed the Plaintiff.
(However, a contract of employment was drawn up on the condition that daily salary of 440,000 won, monthly salary of 10,000 won, annual salary of 132,00,000 won.
C was supplied by the Defendant from April 11, 2016 to August 23, 2016.
C. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 91 million to the Defendant.
Around September 13, 2016, the Defendant filed an application with C for a payment order claiming for the payment of KRW 472,326,274 of the price of the goods. On July 15, 2016, C asserted that KRW 91 million, which was remitted to the Defendant on July 15, 2016, was part of the price of the goods. Ultimately, C’s decision on recommending settlement was finalized to pay the remainder of KRW 381,326,274 of the price of the goods claimed by the Defendant to the Defendant, which was KRW 472,326,274 of the price of the goods claimed by the Defendant.
(The grounds for recognition). [Attachment District Court Decision 2016No. 5148] / [Ground for recognition] / [The grounds for recognition] written evidence Gap, Gap evidence No. 1, 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, 3, 5, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), part of testimony of witness D in the first instance trial (excluding the portion not trusted in the following), the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 91 million to the Defendant individually at D’s request, which was the Defendant’s director. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 91 million and delay damages.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant on July 15, 2016 constitutes part of the goods payment obligation against the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to return the said money to the Plaintiff.
3. When the other party contests a loan argument by the judgment party.