beta
Text
1. The Selection C is the Plaintiff’s KRW 30,00,000 and 5% per annum from October 31, 201 to June 18, 2015.
Reasons
1. On October 31, 201, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) entered into a supply and installation contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “F”) with a view to supplying and installing materials, such as stone and others, to G remodeling work (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”).
At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff, the representative director of E, was requested to lend funds from the Selectioner C, who was a F director, on October 31, 201, and transferred KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s deposit account to the Selectioner C (hereinafter “the instant money”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, A1-2, 2-2, 6, 7, the purport of all pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of tort liability 1) The Appointed C and F’s representative director of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) by deceiving the Plaintiff as if he acted in collusion to show design drawings or concluded the contract of this case; and (b) this constitutes a case where D, the representative director of the corporation, intentionally or negligently inflicted damage on the Plaintiff by intentional or negligent illegal act; (c) the Appointed C, the Appointed D, and F are jointly liable for joint tort liability. The Defendant (Appointed Party) falls under the case where the Appointed C, the Appointed, a corporation established for the purpose of evading the Plaintiff’s F’s obligations against the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant (Appointed Party) is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of this case and compensation for delay; and (e) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Appointed, the Appointed D, and C, a representative director of the corporation, committed fraud and deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Appointed, the Appointed Party, and the Plaintiff’s Appointd Party, etc.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on this premise is examined.