beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the description of No. 1 of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is recognized to have lent KRW 2 billion to the Defendant on January 8, 2004 as the due date set on June 7, 2004 (hereinafter “the loan of this case”). Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 2 billion to the Plaintiff and its delay damages, barring any special circumstance.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant's gist of the defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff's investment in KRW 2 billion to the defendant and then the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant has been terminated by acquiring 2.41 million shares and management rights of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "non-party bank") from the defendant.
B. Determination 1) Where an obligor’s property owned by the obligor is transferred to the obligee in relation to the obligation, and it is not clearly revealed that it was transferred to the obligee or transferred to secure the previous obligation, whether it was transferred to the obligee shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the amount of obligation at the time of transfer of ownership, the value of the real estate at the time of the transfer of ownership, the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the obligation, the process of the agreement, the situation at the time of the agreement, and the control and disposal of the pertinent property thereafter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da1980, Jun. 8, 1993; 2010Da94410, Jun. 14, 2012); and (3) the entry in subparagraphs 1 through 6; and the overall purport of the argument in the inquiry of the fact into the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation in the court of the first instance at the trial; and (4) the entry in the above evidence No. 8 does not interfere with the above evidence No. 7.
① On October 23, 2001, the defendant was appointed as the representative director of the non-party bank and resigned on November 17, 2004. As above, the defendant received KRW 2 billion from the plaintiff on January 8, 2004 while he was in office as the representative director and received KRW 2 billion from the plaintiff on January 8, 2004, and issued evidence No. 1.