beta
Text
1. From February 16, 2016 to January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 80,720,00 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff leased and used a plant and office (Gdong and Hdong) on the ground and three lots of land, both E and F, as a company manufacturing gold-type machinery, etc., and the Defendant owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Gdong and Hdong”), respectively.
B. Around April 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 400,000,000 from the Defendant, and around May 2015, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 250,000 to the Defendant, but failed to repay the remainder of KRW 150,00,000,00, and the Plaintiff failed to pay the factory rent to the Defendant properly.
C. At the time, the Plaintiff was in use of the total of 16 machinery listed in the separate sheet in the above factory (hereinafter “instant machinery”). However, the machines listed in the separate sheet Nos. 11,12, and 16 were owned by the Plaintiff, but the machines listed in the Nos. 1 and 2 through 10, 14, and 15 were concluded with J Co., Ltd., and the machines listed in the separate sheet Nos. 13 and 13 were paid rent for them.
On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for acquisition or transfer of machinery and equipment (in the contract, the Plaintiff did not specify the price for the machinery and equipment) under which the Plaintiff transferred the instant machinery to the Defendant, and entered into a contract for the lease of machinery to lease the instant machinery from the Defendant at KRW 3,000,000 each month (excluding value-added tax) and received the authentication of each of the above contracts.
E. On September 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the lease agreement on the ground that the Plaintiff was in arrears for the rent of two months under the said machinery lease agreement, and demanded the Plaintiff to order the said machinery. On October 17, 2015, the instant machinery was removed from the factory and sold to the representative M of “L”, a seller of used machinery, for the same day, KRW 264,00,000.
F. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant stolen the instant machinery owned by the Plaintiff, and filed a complaint against the Defendant as a larceny. However, the investigative agency against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was transferred the instant machinery from the Plaintiff.