2019Na2041769 Action for a claim, such as nullification of a notarial deed

A Stock Company

Law Firm Lee Doon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Ho-ho

B

Law Firm So-young, Attorney So-young

Attorney Soh Li-chul

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap52354 Decided May 10, 2019

April 3, 2020

May 13, 2020

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

A. On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff’s principal amounted to KRW 3,00,000,000 under a monetary loan agreement for consumption as of May 24, 2016 and interest thereon and all other obligations against the Defendant are not nonexistent.

B. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 375,293,500 won with 5% interest per annum from January 20, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant regarding the claim for payment of money is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows. The defendant's assertion that the defendant added or emphasized in this Court is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph 2. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional or supplementary judgment

A. The Defendant asserts that the amount deposited directly from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s name is less than KRW 19,443,500, and the remainder is less than KRW 19,443,500, and the Defendant did not gain profit exceeding KRW 19,443,50. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, since the Plaintiff’s representative director transferred the total amount of KRW 269,28,50 from the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account to the Defendant’s name or new bank account from December 16, 2015 to January 20, 2017, either directly or through the Plaintiff’s accounting staff, from the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account to the Defendant’s name, to the Defendant’s No. 269,288,500, total sum.

B. In addition, the Defendant asserts to the effect that G received a total of KRW 79,350,00 from the Defendant’s side as investment deposit and remitted it to the Plaintiff’s account again, and that the Defendant thereafter did not constitute unjust enrichment of KRW 79,350,000 among the money returned by the Plaintiff. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant transferred the sum of KRW 79,350,000 to G as investment deposit in the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise (i.e., the statement in subparagraph 5), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that G transferred the sum of KRW 79,350,90 in total to the Plaintiff from April 16, 2015 to August 11, 2015). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ho

Judge Lee Jin-hun

Judges Guide-Council