logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.1.23.선고 2012가합10235 판결
부당이득금반환
Cases

2012 Gohap10235 Return of unjust enrichment

Plaintiff

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

A

Conclusion of Pleadings

December 26, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

January 23, 2013

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,500,000,000 won with 20% interest per annum from August 2, 2012 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The order is as set forth in the text.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1-1 through 21, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 3, and 4 by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

A. The defendant is a founder who deals with Busan Savings Bank Group by acquiring the Busan Savings Bank on 1981 and changing the trade name to Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the " Busan Savings Bank"), and taking over a new Busan Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "M2 Savings Bank") around 1999.

B. On April 29, 2011 and October 19, 2011, Busan 2 savings bank was subject to a disposition of business suspension under the Act on the Structural Improvement of the Financial Industry, and was declared bankrupt on March 7, 2012 and appointed the Plaintiff as a trustee in bankruptcy.

C. The Defendant was registered as a director of each Busan 2 Savings Bank from August 25, 2002 to August 29, 2005, from August 29, 2005 to April 29, 201, whose execution of duties was suspended, and was registered as an audit committee member of the Busan 2 Savings Bank from August 29, 2005 to January 5, 2006. However, in fact, the Defendant was registered as a member of the audit committee of the Busan 2 Savings Bank from August 29, 2005, but was registered as a member of the audit committee of the Busan 2 Savings Bank. However, in fact, the Defendant was registered as a member of the audit committee of the Busan 2 Savings Bank to C and D, etc., who was the head of South and North Korea, and was working as director or member of the audit committee of the Busan 2 Savings Bank or was not engaged in the duties of the member.

D. From October 20, 2001 to January 21, 201, the Defendant was transferred from the Busan 2 Savings Bank to the account in the name of the Defendant ( Busan 2 Savings Bank E) under the name of the Defendant, such as salary, etc., totaling KRW 3,660,013,670, as shown in the attached Form of Benefit.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, although the defendant actually worked as a director or an audit committee member of the Busan 2 Savings Bank or was not involved in the business, he received 3,660,013,670 won in total from the Busan 2 Savings Bank as the payment of benefits, etc., and took profits without any legal grounds and suffered damages equivalent to the amount to the Busan 2 Savings Bank. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay 1.5 billion won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, who is the trustee in bankruptcy of the Busan 2 Savings Bank, as claimed by the plaintiff, as part of the above 3,660,013, and 670 won.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

As to this, the defendant transferred the shares of the Busan Savings Bank to B and its subordinate employees, and did not participate in the management. The money transferred to the defendant's account in the name of the defendant was arranged as payment in the form of honorable treatment to the defendant who is the founder of the Busan Savings Bank Group, and actually used the expenses that are difficult to increase and manage the capital, so the defendant did not receive it. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 2, 2012 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

Judges in the form of a judge

Judge Doo

Judges Jeon Soo-hoon

Site of separate sheet

A person shall be appointed.

arrow