Plaintiff (Law Firm Dong-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Doe, Attorney Lee Jong-o, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 12, 2017

Busan District Court Decision 2014Gahap48074 Decided July 23, 2015

1. The first instance judgment, including a claim added or modified by this Court, shall be amended as follows:

A. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

B. The Plaintiff’s first preliminary claim against the Defendants is dismissed in entirety.

C. Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 200,000,000 with 5% per annum from May 20, 2016 to May 31, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

D. The plaintiff's second preliminary claim against the defendant 1 and the second preliminary claim against the defendant 2 (party 1) are all dismissed.

2. Of the litigation costs, 60% of the total litigation cost incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, 40% by the Defendant 1, and the appeal cost incurred between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 by the Plaintiff.

3. The 1-C. A provisional execution may be effected.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 765,639,662 and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from August 29, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2 Preliminaryly, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 200,000,000 and 15% per annum from February 11, 2015 to the date of full payment.

(In the trial, the plaintiff changed the claim at the first instance trial to the first preliminary claim, and changed the amount of the claim, and added the main claim and the second preliminary claim).

1. Basic facts

(a) Gold export business and futures investment by the Ac Entertainment System;

1) On January 23, 2009, Accomtain (hereinafter “Accomtain”) added “the export business of precious metals, etc.” to its intended business, and on July 15, 2009, Co-Defendant 4, co-Defendant 1, a representative director, was appointed.

2) 아큐먼시스템즈는 2009. 2. 9.경부터 2010. 6.경까지 국내에서 고금을 매입한 후 골드바 형태로 정련한 금지금을 홍콩에 있는 윙펑(WING FUNG PRECIOUS METALS LIMITED, 이하 ‘윙펑사’라 한다)에 수출하였다.

3) Meanwhile, on November 2009, The Cretain’s System established a futures account with the Dongyang Futures Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the name is omitted) around March 2010, and made investment in the futures account with approximately KRW 5.4 billion in the Aretain’s account from November 2009 to June 2010, through each of the said investment securities companies.

(b) Tax investigation and administrative litigation on the documentary system business;

1) The documentary system business reported corporate tax by appropriating the purchase price of gold in the business year 2009 as KRW 309,830,057,518.

2) On September 6, 2010, the head of the Sung-dong Tax Office determined that the documentary management system business reported corporate tax by appropriating the purchase price of gold in excess of KRW 12,517,530,851 per week and imposed corporate tax on the documentary management system business for the business year 3,826,95,790.

3) Accordingly, documentary management system business filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition imposing corporate tax as Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap22287, but the said claim was dismissed on April 19, 2013. The Seoul High Court appealed 2013Nu15981, but the appeal was dismissed on January 21, 2015 and confirmed on February 10, 2015 (hereinafter “relevant administrative case”).

C. The plaintiff's criminal complaint relating to futures investment

1) On November 6, 2012, Defendant 1 asserted that Defendant 1 was the actual operator of the Acccom Investment System Business, and Defendant 1 invested KRW 548,508,606 from December 10, 2009 to June 21, 2010 in the futures trading without the consent of investors, including the Plaintiff, in relation to the gold bullion export business (violation of trust) and suffered losses (violation of the Act on the Accom Investment in Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of trust), ② from June 16, 2010 to August 27, 2010, Defendant 1 filed a criminal complaint for the criminal charge (Embezzlement of the Act on the Accom Investment in Specific Economic Crimes).

2) On February 10, 2014, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office investigated the case, and made a non-prosecution disposition (Seoul Central Public Prosecutor’s Office 2013 punishment No. 63441) against Defendant 1 on the ground that Nonparty 5’s whereabouts are unknown. The Plaintiff appealed against the Plaintiff, but the appeal was dismissed on March 19, 2014 (Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office 2014 High Public Prosecutor’s Office 2014 High Public Prosecutor’s Office 3044). The application for adjudication was dismissed on June 13, 2014 (Seoul High Public Prosecutor’s Office 2014 High Public Prosecutor’s Office 2014 High Public Prosecutor’s Office 30

[Ground for recognition] The facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3; Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including various numbers: Provided, That each of the evidence No. 2-18, 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, 84, 85, 9, 101, 103, 105, 112, and 12-12 of Gap evidence No. 3; non-party No. 2's testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings, which are the whole purport of the pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary claim

Defendant 1: (a) around January 2009, upon accepting and operating the Accom Investment System and operating the Accom Investment Business in substance; (b) Defendant 2 jointly operated the Accom Investment System; and (c) Defendant 1, along with Defendant 1. The Defendants solicited to make investments in the Accom Investment Business, and invested KRW 740 million in total to the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the profits under the Investment Agreement, and the Plaintiff’s profits under the Investment Agreement are as follows.

A) In the relevant administrative case, 12,517,530,851 won (i.e., KRW 309,830,057,518, which the management authority recognized as excessive appropriation of the amount at the expense of the management system business (i.e., KRW 297,312,526,667, which was reported at the purchase price by the management authority in filing corporate tax return - Of the purchase price publicly notified on the Internet homepage by the management authority, it is clear that the highest price should be converted by the purchase price by the management authority for each purchase date should be added to the profits from the Defendants’ gold export. Thus, if the management authority deducts corporate tax of KRW 3,826,95,79,00 imposed on the management system business from the above profits, the net profits would be KRW 8,690,575,061, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s investment shares, the Defendants shall be jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B) Unless otherwise, the Defendants’ revenues from their gold export business as of June 2010 on the account books (Evidence No. 17 and 19) of the documentary Human System (Evidence No. 17 and 19) are KRW 9,307,454,534. Thus, if the Defendants’ revenues from the said revenues amounted to KRW 3,826,95,790, the net revenues amounting to KRW 5,480,498,744, and the Plaintiff’s profits amounting to KRW 8.81% of the Plaintiff’s investment shares are KRW 482,831,939. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 482,831,939, and damages for delay.

C) Unless otherwise, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff at least KRW 309,503,000 as well as damages for delay on November 6, 2009, “The current status of investment and appraised Assets (Evidence A 4) by date,” which was prepared by the documentary management system business. As of November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff’s equity interest rate is KRW 5.29%, and subsequent profits are KRW 309,503,00.

2) First Preliminary Claim

Even if the Plaintiff invested KRW 740,000,000,000,000 in the documentary system business that is not the Defendants, the Plaintiff has a claim for profits, such as (a) through (c) the said primary claim against the documentary system business.

On the other hand, the Defendants embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 12,517,530,851 that the tax authority recognized as excessive appropriation of the amount at the expense of the documentary management system in the relevant administrative case while operating the documentary management system. As such, the Defendants shall jointly and severally compensate the said amount to the documentary management system for damages caused by a tort.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the above profits claim and the damages for delay, in subrogation of the damages claim against the Defendants by the Accomtainment System as the creditor of the Actainment System.

3) 2 Preliminary Claim

In the course of the relevant administrative case, the Defendants agreed to pay KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff, and KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff in the case of the said administrative case. In the relevant administrative case, inasmuch as the judgment against the Accccctic System Business was finalized on February 10, 2015, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 200 million and the damages for delay.

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

The Defendants did not operate a documentary management system and did not receive investments from the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

According to the allegations of the parties, I first examine who is the actual operator of the Cattain System, and then examine the contents of the Plaintiff’s investment agreement with the other party to the investment, and then determine the propriety of the Plaintiff’s claim.

A. Determination as to the actual operator of the documentary system;

1) 앞서 든 증거에 의하면, 아큐먼시스템즈는 윙펑사와 금 수출거래를 하면서 서울 종로구 종로3가와 창신동에 각 사무소를 두었는데(이하 종로 3가에 있는 사무실을 ‘종로사무실’, 창신동에 있는 사무실을 ‘창신동 사무실’이라 한다), 종로사무실에는 소외 6, 소외 7(현재 사망), 소외 5가 근무하면서 고금을 매입하는 업무를 처리하였고, 창신동 사무실에서는 피고들과 소외 2가 근무하면서, 종로사무실에서 매입한 고금을 윙펑사로 수출하는 업무와 아큐먼시스템즈의 통장, 사용인감 등을 보관하면서 자금 업무를 처리하였던 사실이 인정된다.

2) Furthermore, in full view of the following facts revealed by the evidence as seen earlier, comprehensively taking account of the status of the parties, the process of taking over the documentary education system, the investor’s investment status and developments leading up to the documentary education system business, the role of the parties concerned in the gold export business, and the party’s statement in the relevant criminal case, etc., Defendant 1 may sufficiently confirm the fact that the Defendant 6, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 7, etc.”) who worked in the paper office is the actual operator of the documentary education system business, and the fact that the Defendant 1 carried out the gold export business in substance while operating the documentary education system. Unlike the above evidence 18, 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, 84, 85, 9, 101, 103, 105, etc., or part of the witness evidence 2-18, 26, 25, 28, 29, 29, 105, and 1112

① Nonparty 6, who served in the office of the curtainment System, is Defendant 1’s wife, and Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 5 are Defendant 1’s wife.

② Defendant 1 initially exported gold bullion, etc. from around 1997 in the course of operating the Hansung Comprehensive Commercial Corporation. around 2004, Defendant 1 and Hansung Comprehensive Commercial Corporation (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do637 Decided 2007) was indicted for violating the Customs Act, etc., but around that time, Hansung Comprehensive Commercial Corporation closed its business. Defendant 2 also closed its business. The Defendants sought for gold export-related business around January 2009, the Defendants agreed to acquire existing corporations and conduct its business rather than establishing new corporations, and Defendant 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 8 participated in the business at the time of using the documentary system and the representative director at the time of using the documentary system. At the time of Non-party 8’s use of the documentary system, the representative director at the time of Non-party 9’s use of the documentary system and sought for the Defendants’ use of it in the process of its export-related business around 1900.

③ In addition, Defendant 2 introduced Defendant 1 to the Plaintiff around January 2009, the Defendants purchased gold in Korea and recommended investment in order to export it to a foreign country. The Plaintiff invested KRW 740 million in total from February 5, 2009 to March 16, 2009 after entering into an investment with Defendant 1. At the time, the Plaintiff did not reach an agreement with Nonparty 7 or negotiated terms and conditions of investment.

④ Meanwhile, “The current status of equity investment and appraised assets by date” prepared in relation to the export of the documentary system business (Evidence No. 4, Defendant 2, the witness of the trial court, testified that the above document was prepared in the paper office, and Defendant 1 was presented to himself/herself) evaluated the current status of investors’ investment in the documentary system business from February 9, 2009 to November 6, 2009 and its assets. The indicated “○○○○” is the Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Nonparty 7, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, the Plaintiff, and Defendant 2, the Plaintiff’s equity interest in KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000 won, and Nonparty 1,767,000,000,000,000,000 won.

⑤ 창신동 사무실에서 피고 1과 근무한 소외 2는 원고의 조카로서 원고의 소개로 2009. 2.경 아큐먼시스템즈에 취업하여 근무하였는데, 피고 1의 지시에 따라 종로사무실에서 매입한 고금을 취합하여 윙펑사로 수출하는 업무와 법인 통장 등을 관리하면서 회사 자금을 관리하는 실무적인 업무를 담당하였다. 한편 아큐먼시스템즈 명의의 금거래 대금이 수백 억 원에 달하자, 소외 9는 2009. 7.경 아큐먼시스템즈의 명목상 대표이사직을 사임하였고, 이에 소외 8의 부탁으로 2009. 7.경 아큐먼시스템즈의 후임 대표이사로 취임한 소외 4 역시 금 수출사업에 관여한 적은 없고 명목상 대표이사로서 월 400만 원씩을 아큐먼시스템즈로부터 지급받았을 뿐이다. 관련 형사사건에서, 소외 9, 소외 4는 아큐먼시스템즈의 실질 운영자는 피고 1이라고 진술하였다.

④ Since the end of November 2009, the Cattain’s system changed international market prices, as seen earlier, invested in futures. Nonparty 2 transferred funds in the Cattain’s corporate passbook to futures accounts according to Defendant 1’s instruction, and invested in futures by remitting them to the futures account.

7) On June 2010, the National Tax Service attached KRW 3.5 billion, out of cash 3.74 billion in a credit cooperative, which was engaged in the search and seizure of an Acctainment System’s paper office. At the time, Defendant 1 had Nonparty 2 open a paper office or instruct Nonparty 2 to destroy CCTV video tapes, and the National Tax Service prepared a leading measure, such as bringing cash 2.4 billion won not attached to the National Tax Service, to himself/herself.

④ Meanwhile, Defendant 2 stated that the actual operator of the documentary management system was Nonparty 7 working in the final office. However, Defendant 2’s testimony was difficult to believe that Defendant 2’s statement was due to Defendant 2’s failure to give clear testimony to the actual operator of the documentary management system in the party’s testimony.

9. It is true that a non-prosecution disposition was taken without suspicion in a criminal case, and it is not bound by the civil trial, and the court may recognize the facts opposed to it by means of free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu623, Apr. 27, 198, etc.). Furthermore, in the related criminal case, Defendant 1 was a non-prosecution disposition of the suspension of witness on the grounds that the whereabouts of Nonparty 5 is unknown, and therefore, the judgment of this court is not necessary to be bound by the investigation results of the related criminal case.

B. Determination on the content of the Plaintiff’s investment counterpart agreement

1) Determination of the other party to the investment

The Plaintiff invested KRW 740 million in total from February 5, 2009 to March 16, 2009 upon Defendant 2’s investment recommendation. Furthermore, considering whether the Plaintiff’s investment is Defendant 1 or the other party to the investment, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff invested in the Accom Investment System based on the aforementioned facts and the following circumstances, and it is insufficient to determine otherwise solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as partial statement of No. 30 of the evidence No. 2, etc.

① While filing a criminal complaint with Defendant 1 and Nonparty 4 through breach of trust, order, etc., the Plaintiff stated in the complaint that the Plaintiff invested in the documentary education system (only summary, if the Plaintiff invested in Defendant 1, there seems to be no reason to file a criminal complaint with Nonparty 4). The Plaintiff asserted in the first instance court of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff invested in the documentary education system, and changed the assertion that the Plaintiff invested in Defendant 1. In light of this point, the Plaintiff also thought that the Plaintiff invested in the documentary education system.

② On February 5, 2009, the Plaintiff invested KRW 200 million by remitting the money to a new bank account under the name of the documentary education system business.

③ After investment, the Plaintiff merely received a report from the Defendants on the current status of investment and appraised assets (Evidence A4) by the date of “Accomtainment System Business” (Evidence A), and did not seek data from Defendant 1 on the premise that the Plaintiff invested in Defendant 1.

④ The Plaintiff received reports from the Defendants on the current status of investment and evaluation assets (Evidence A No. 4) by each date of the “Accomtainment System Business” (Evidence A), and instructed Nonparty 2, an employee of the Accomtain System, to record the content of the Accomtainment System’s gold export business in a timely manner.

⑤ From October 2009, the Plaintiff received a dividend of KRW 970,000,000,000 from the revenue. The Plaintiff received the revenue through Nonparty 2, who is an employee of the documentary management system.

6) Nonparty 2 testified in the first instance trial that the Plaintiff invested in the AD Entertainment System.

2) Determination on the content of the investment agreement

As such, the Plaintiff invested KRW 740,000,000,000 in the Acccom Entertainment. Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned evidence, the Cccom Entertainment’s investment in the Accom Entertainment other than the Plaintiff and Nonparty 7 was also acknowledged as having been reported to the investors by creating “the current status of investment and appraised assets (Evidence A) at the beginning of each month.” The content of Cccom Entertainment’s investment is calculated according to the investor’s investment ratio for each time the Cccom Entertainment’s investment is “the appraised value after deducting all kinds of expenses incurred in connection with the export of gold.” The investor’s investment ratio is based on the premise that the relevant revenues are re-invested without the investor’s request for the payment of the profits. In this case, the Plaintiff claimed its profits in accordance with the method of calculating the above profits of the Accom Entertainment System.” In addition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is paid the appraised value calculated by deducting various expenses incurred in relation to the export of gold from the export gold.”

C. Judgment as to the plaintiff's main claim

This part of the Plaintiff’s claim is premised on the premise that the other party to the investment agreement is the Defendants, and it is reasonable to see that the other party to the investment agreement is the management institution. As seen earlier, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted even without further examining.

D. Judgment on the plaintiff's first preliminary claim

1) First, we examine the argument that the Plaintiff has a claim for proceeds of KRW 765,639,662 on the documentary management system.

The Plaintiff’s assertion is that: 12,517,530,851 won (i.e., 309,830,057,518 won, which is reported at the purchase price at the high-price price when the management agency reported the corporate tax in the relevant administrative case by the management agency while imposing corporate tax on the management system (i.e., 309,830,057,518 won) in the relevant administrative case; ii) the highest price among the purchase prices publicly notified by the domestic management company on the Internet homepage is the revenue of the management system business.

However, it is evident that the purchase price of the documentary system business recognized by the tax authority in the relevant administrative case is estimated calculation. Even if the court in the relevant administrative case deemed that the aforementioned disposition of the tax authority was not unlawful, it cannot be readily concluded that the documentary system business actually raised the revenue from the said estimation calculation by the tax authority.

In other words, in the relevant administrative case, if the tax authorities have proved that the amount of expenses claimed by the taxpayer was significantly false, the court does not establish that it is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all the data such as the account books and evidence regarding the specific cost spending facts and that there is a need to verify it in the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8306, Feb. 9, 2006). In light of the legal principles, it is difficult to prove that the data about the purchase price of high-priced funds submitted by the Acccomtain Business System were false, and that the tax authorities do not actually make it impossible for the tax authorities to investigate and confirm the actual contents of the 60,000 cases and transactions on a daily basis. However, it is difficult for the tax authorities to determine that it is reasonable to impose 150,000 won of high-end documentary transactions without recognizing the total amount of expenses, and that it is reasonable to impose 155,000 won of high-end documentary purchase price of five documentary transactions.

In addition, it is insufficient to view that the Cattain System solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff that it has made profits equivalent to KRW 12,517,530,851.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s claim for the Defendant’s claim for the amount of KRW 765,639,662 on June 2010, on the premise that the curtainment System’s income amounting to KRW 12,517,530,851 was raised.

2) Next, on June 2010, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s revenue from the Human Entertainment System reaches KRW 482,831,939, 201.

In this regard, the Plaintiff’s investment in the Cretain Business, agreed to receive the profit assessed after deducting various expenses incurred in connection with the export of gold from the purchase price to the investor’s investment ratio, and the fact that the Cretain Business’s investment in the Cretain Business was made to the Police Officer on June 2010 is as seen earlier. As such, in order to calculate the Plaintiff’s profit, the value of the profit assessed from the export of the Cretain Business’s gold on June 2010 and the investor’s investment ratio at that time should be calculated. However, it is insufficient to calculate the profit assessed only on the evidence of No. 17 through 23 submitted by the Plaintiff.

In other words, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the evidence Nos. 17 and 19 (Acktain’s account books) was prepared by Nonparty 2. The Plaintiff submitted a statement of profit compiled from the relevant criminal case to the first instance court of this case (Acktain’s evidence Nos. 5-1, 2), and the current status of investment and appraised assets (Acktain evidence No. 13) by date, and the contents of Gap’s evidence Nos. 17 and 19 are inconsistent with each other. In light of the time of submission, contents, etc., the evidence Nos. 17 and 19 was prepared for the instant lawsuit, and it is difficult to believe that it is, because of a strong doubt as to the authenticity of its contents, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone is difficult to calculate the profit accrued from the export of the Scktain’s account books and the appraised value of investment shares at the time of the submission.

Ultimately, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim for proceeds from the Acktainment System’s business reaches KRW 482,831,939 among June 2010.

3) Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that earnings based on 5.29% of the Plaintiff’s equity shares as of November 6, 2009, as shown in the current status of investment and appraised assets (Evidence A No. 4) by date, are KRW 309,50,00.

As seen earlier, Defendant 2 testified that “The current status of investment and appraised assets (Evidence A No. 4) by date” was made up in the office of the Accomtainment System business, Defendant 2, as the witness of the trial, testified that this was made up in the paper office of the Accomtainment System. As of November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff’s equity interest rate as of November 6, 2009 is 5.29%, and the profits therefrom is 309,503,000 won.

However, the investment agreement between the Plaintiff and the documentary human system business is based on the investor's investment ratio of the appraised value after deducting various expenses incurred in relation to the gold export from the gold export amount each time the gold export is made, and the investor's request for the payment of the profits is made at the request of the investor, and it seems that the profit is re-investment without the request for the payment of the profits, and the rate of investment is to be re-established. The gold export business of the documentary human system is made during June 2010. As seen earlier, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to arbitrarily select a certain point of time during the investment period and claim the profits settled on the basis of the time during the investment period (According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the documentary human system from November 6, 2009 to December 4, 2009). This part of the Plaintiff's assertion is difficult to accept.

4) Sub-determination

As a result, the Plaintiff’s first preliminary claim is unlawful because it is insufficient to prove the existence of the claim for proceeds from the Accomtainment System Business, which is the preserved claim.

E. Judgment on the second preliminary claim

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, Defendant 1 made a statement that Defendant 1 had carried out gold export business in the course of operating the documentary management system business as seen earlier. In the relevant criminal case, in full view of the following evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant 2: (a) caused considerable damage to gold export transactions on or around December 2009 due to changes in international gold market prices; (b) although the Plaintiff did not find it, Defendant 2 stated that the Plaintiff was placed in the legal account as it did not find it; (c) Defendant 1 also stated that the settlement amount to be paid to the Plaintiff should not exceed KRW 300 million; (d) Defendant 1, around July 2011, when the relevant administrative case was pending, shall be paid KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff through Nonparty 2; and (e) Defendant 201 billion in the case of a loss of the Plaintiff’s investment in the relevant administrative system; and (e) Defendant 201 billion won in the case of an agreement against the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, although the plaintiff asserted that the defendant 2 also agreed as above, in light of the status of the defendant 2's documentary management system business, it is insufficient to recognize this only with the evidence of the plaintiff's submission.

Therefore, Defendant 1, as of May 20, 2016, is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from May 20, 2016, the following day after the Plaintiff’s application for amendment of the purport of the claim, which was filed on May 19, 2016, which was served on the above Defendant, as the date when the judgment on the relevant administrative case became final and conclusive. However, in light of the contents of the above agreement, it is difficult to view that the date when the judgment on the relevant administrative case becomes final and conclusive is determined as the due date and that it is not a claim with no fixed due date) to dispute as to the existence or scope of the above Defendant’s obligation to perform, until May 31, 2017, which is the date when the judgment on the relevant administrative case becomes final and conclusive, and from the following day to the date when the payment is made.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit, and the first preliminary claim is dismissed as illegal, and the second preliminary claim is accepted only against the defendant 1 within the scope of recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the first instance judgment.

Judges Soh-ho (Presiding Judge) Constitution of Kim Jong-ho

Note 1) The calculation details are as shown in the fifth summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion.