beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 48,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from October 1, 2013 to October 28, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around April 2012, the Defendant organized a total of 26 successful bid system (hereinafter “instant system”) with Nonparty C, etc. Around April 2012. The method of the said system is to pay KRW 200,000 per month to the fraternity who did not receive the fraternity, and KRW 250,000 per month received the fraternity.
B. C paid 2 million won each of the three-time deposits by June 2012, however, the same year:
7. From September 30, 2013 to September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff deposited 2 million won per month into the Defendant account in its own name.
C. On September 30, 2013, at KRW 57.5 million, the Defendant transferred to C the balance of KRW 3.5 million remaining after deducting KRW 26 million from the Defendant’s loans from KRW 10 million on April 19, 2012, and the amount of unpaid deposits in any other accounts than the instant fraternity and KRW 2.6 million during the duration of the instant fraternity’s existence.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The gist of the original Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff succeeded to the Plaintiff’s qualification as a fraternity member in the last sequence with the Defendant’s consent, but the Defendant embezzled the fraternity to be paid to him/her by offsetting with the bonds unrelated to the instant fraternity against C on September 30, 2013, premised on the premise that C is a fraternity member, and that this would result in the embezzlement of the fraternity to be paid to him/her by offsetting with the bonds unrelated to the instant fraternity, and that it is justifiable to claim that the Plaintiff should compensate for the damages and losses incurred by the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff sustained KRW 48,00,000,000,000, which should have been paid by the last day after September 31, 2013, which is the point at which the instant fraternity was completed, by the first day after September 31, 2013, since the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff’s bonds, and thus, the instant fraternity member is a separate set-off against C.
Therefore, the issues of this case are as follows.