beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Life Insurance”) leased KRW 6,100,000 to C on October 14, 2002. The Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation for Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
B. On December 3, 2002, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5,566,363 in Samsung Life Insurance with the Defendant as depositee in relation to the above obligation of the Defendant and C.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's primary claim is 1) The plaintiff requested that the defendant lend money to the defendant for the repayment of the debt of this case. On December 3, 2002, the plaintiff lent KRW 5,566,363 to the defendant on December 3, 2002. (2) The plaintiff subrogated for KRW 5,566,363 to Samsung Life Insurance for the defendant. Thus, the defendant should pay the above money and delay damages.
B. Determination 1) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,566,363 to the Defendant regarding the allegation 1). Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
2) As to the above claim 2, this part of the argument is examined to the purport that the defendant should perform his/her obligation, since the plaintiff's right to claim reimbursement of expenses or the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment due to the management of affairs by subrogation has been established.
In order to establish office management, first of all, it is necessary to say that the office work is another person's business and there is an intention to vest in another person the actual benefit of management, i.e., the intention to vest in another person, and furthermore, it is not clear that the process of such office work is disadvantageous to the principal or goes against his/her will (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da26326, Oct. 10, 197). The repayment by a third person is in itself beneficial to the debtor unless there is any counter-proof.