beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 30, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a monetary loan agreement to lend KRW 110 million to Defendant B with the introduction of a bond business operator as a middleman.
B. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted the said loan to Defendant B’s bank account pursuant to the said agreement. On September 19, 2012, the Plaintiff wired KRW 140 million by mistake.
[Ground of recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, the entries in Gap evidence 1-1-2, and the assertion of confession between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C
2. Claim against the defendant B
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B, without any legal cause, obtained the same amount as the Plaintiff’s money of KRW 30 million. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment of KRW 30 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 30, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint.
B. Determination 1 as to Defendant B’s assertion 1) The summary of the argument is that Defendant C needs to pay funds with respect to the construction work of Boby-si, and thus, the said monetary loan contract was concluded in the name of Defendant B, which is the site director. The Defendant thought that the Plaintiff, the lender, extended further loans of KRW 30 million, and that the Plaintiff, who is the lender, transferred this money to Defendant C. For this reason, the Defendant B received a non-consultation disposition in a criminal case filed by the Plaintiff, and did not gain any profit. 2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff and Defendant B received a monetary loan loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant B received a deposit claim equivalent to KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff at the same time against the bank, and thereafter, Defendant B transferred the said money to Defendant C is merely a matter between the Defendants.
In addition, since the requirements for the establishment of embezzlement and civil unjust enrichment are entirely different, the plaintiff is suspected of embezzlement.