beta
Text
1. From September 23, 2015 to May 12, 2017, the Defendant’s KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from September 23, 2015 to May 13, 2017.
Reasons
1. On November 23, 2012, the Defendant is called “numbering System” in November 2012, 2012, 21 unit (hereinafter referred to as “numbering System”) for a fake account of KRW 20 million.
A) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s owner. The Plaintiff was a member of the foregoing number 19, who was charged with the crime of breach of trust on November 23, 2012 to January 23, 2014, and paid KRW 15 million in total at 15,000,000 per month. The Defendant received KRW 20,000 from the number fraternity members on May 23, 2014, but did not pay the fraternity to the Plaintiff as a cause of the Plaintiff. The Defendant was convicted of a crime of breach of trust on May 31, 2016, and was convicted of a fine of KRW 5,00,000 for the Plaintiff on May 31, 2016. The judgment above became final and conclusive around that time [No evidence 1-2, 31-1, 1-31-1, 1-1, and 1-1, 3-1, respectively.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,000,000 for the Notarial Book as of November 2012 and the delay damages therefrom.
B. On June 15, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that on June 15, 2008, the Plaintiff was not paid the total amount of KRW 21,70 million (= KRW 1080,000,000,000,000,000 which was organized by the Defendant, and the total amount of the fraternity was paid. The Plaintiff asserted that on June 15, 2008, the Plaintiff was not paid the KRW 21,70,000,000,000,000 won (= KRW 10,80,000,000,000).
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff joined the number system and paid the amount to the Defendant, solely on the evidence No. 1-1, No. 4-1, No. 4-2, and No. 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(In addition, it is difficult to understand the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff joined the fraternity organized by the Defendant, even though the fraternity was not a strike but the fraternity was normally terminated, and the Plaintiff was not fully paid the fraternity.