logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.12.23 2014가합106879
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 840,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from April 30, 2007 to July 31, 2014, and the following.

Reasons

Description of Claim

On September 25, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the establishment of a system related to the business of building C with Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and paid KRW 500 million in advance. On February 14, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the establishment of a system related to the business of building D and paid in advance two times.

During the non-party company's failure to perform the above contractual obligations, the defendant, the representative director, had 1.2 billion won of company's public funds around April 30, 2007, and used the plaintiff's service payment to the non-party company, and did not perform the system service under the contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant in fraud. However, the Defendant attempted to file a false joint and several sureties agreement with the Plaintiff on the ground of the false joint and several sureties, and to file a complaint by deceiving the Plaintiff, such as the issuance of false promissory notes, and thereby, to file a report on the closure of business with the Nonparty Company, and to avoid liability under the Bankruptcy Declaration and the exemption decision

In the end, the defendant acquired the advance payment from the plaintiff without the intention or ability to perform the contract since the conclusion of the contract.

The Plaintiff incurred a total of KRW 840,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from advance payment paid to the non-party company due to such intentional tort by the Defendant, except for recovery of KRW 550,000,00 from the guarantee insurance payment letter of the Seoul Guarantee Insurance. The Defendant’s liability for damages arising from intentional tort is not exempted even if the Defendant was granted decision to grant immunity (Article 625(2)4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act). The judgment deeming confession (Article 208(3)2 and Article 150(3) and the main text of

arrow